Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David-Matthew Barnes (2nd nomination)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David-Matthew Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Despite significant expansion of the article over the last decade, this subject has nevertheless failed to meet the notability criteria set forth in WP:AUTHOR, and the page remains a self-promotion venue. The subject may be prolific, but doesn't appear to be notable. Satisfaction of WP:GNG is borderline as sources are regional, routine, and cover the author grouped with other authors, not as an individual profile that would constitute "significant coverage" per the guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In=depth coverage of a topic by a reliable source need not be primarily about the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The First AFD resulted in a Deletion decision in January 2007. The page was recreated in 2008 and has been under the radar ever since. The current article is full of subsequent awards. It is not clear to me if any of these are notable awards, but I am not sure that the aggregate of all of this questionably notable content is not worth keeping.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly prolific, but the fact so few people have ever chosen to write about such a prolific author and playwright seems to clearly establish non-notability. Mattyjohn (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. still no major awards or reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 August 2018 (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.