Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Aylett

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. Consensus that the sources given don't pass the GNG bar. ansh666 07:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Aylett (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)

There are no reliable independent sources establishing the significance of this subject. Maybe it's just a crappy article, but I am not seeing WP:GNG here. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets the minimum of WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews and mentions by The Guardian, reviews of his film in The Quietus and in LA Times, and being named as an influence of Alan Moore and a music band in the New York Times. These were just the best results on the first two pages of a google news search. I'm certain other coverage is available with some effort. I also spotted some interviews that could be used to improve the article (which needs a lot of improvement). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First link: 404. Second link: Personal blog. Third link: distinctly lukewarm namecheck in a listicle ("Steve Aylett’s paean to originality is so elliptical that it’s almost a straight line. And if you think that’s a clever line, you’ll love it. I’m afraid I didn’t."). And so on. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs in the article supporting notability, the refs mentioned above talk about some of his work but not the author and topic of this article Steve Aylett. Sure he's not unknown but I'm not seeing notability, just routine reviews. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per substantial coverage of him and his work in reliable independent sources as noted and linked by Argento above. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Szzuk pointed out, none of that is actually about him. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; the sources listed above are insufficient: blogs and passing mentions. Not notable as an author just yet, nor in any other capacity. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2017 (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.