Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Atkins

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Atkins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I happened to see this is existing again after it was deleted in January because of the basis of "I'll get it to perhaps satisfy WP:BIO" but improvements are not conceivable because of a few things, he's not notable as a lecturer or an author and I've found nothing to confirm otherwise, the next is that the article nearly has no claims of significance as it is since the one linked publisher is in fact an independent publishing. Next, there's literally nothing at all amounting to independent notability and substance hence policy WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. I always find AfDs of poets difficult, because even highly accomplished and widely known poets (as Atkins appears to be) leave so little tangible evidence of themselves in reliable publications, compared to say even the least accomplished and obscure professional footballers. But all I could find for Atkins was an academic journal review of Horace (JSTOR 25742472) and another journal paper comparing his translation of Petrarch to another poet's (doi:10.1007/978-3-319-34045-6_4). I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.