Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Davies (author)

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 keep. Star Mississippi 01:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Davies (author)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

Adam Davies is an author; that's legitimately all I can find about him other than primary sources about him or his books. I am also nominating his book for the same reason; not only can I not find any significant coverage, but the alleged 2011 film does not appear to have ever been made. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, United States of America, and Kentucky. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's reviews of The Frog King in Publisher's Weekly here; in the Baltimore Sun here; and Kirkus Reviews here. There's reviews of Goodbye Lemon in Willamette Weekly here; the Observer here; the Portland Mercury here; the Chicago Tribune here; and KSL here. There's reviews of his book Mine All Mine in SFGate here; Publisher's Weekly here; and the Review Journal here. He's read at Coastal Carolina University here. There's coverage on the author in Sarasota Magazine here; the Herald Tribune here; and the Oklahoma Gazette here. I'm actually pretty confused about this nomination. --Kbabej (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The topic seems notable but it is not cited with any reference. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE CT55555 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JoyStick101! Sources just need to exist, not necessarily be present in the article (although the latter is preferable long term). Per WP:CONRED, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Kbabej (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kbabej has provided all the evidence needed; there's nothing more to add. Both articles are stubs, and neither are great, but neither need TNT and I don't think redirecting one into another would be of any help to anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add: the mention of the 2011 film is indeed very strange and the IMDB link goes nowhere, so I've simply removed it. If someone wants to add it back in with a source, by all means do so. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kbabej won me over. — Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (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.