Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris J (3rd 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris J

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Harris J
• Articles for deletion/Harris J (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Harris J (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Harris J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any source about him in a search. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I have watched this page for years. Even with fans trying hard to build it up (with unreferenced claims that are quickly removed by other editors), it has always failed WP:GNG. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing solid seems to be out there. You Tube & Twitter do not cut any mustard. WP notability guidelines have never made any sense to me; I'm not sure that the book might not be considered notable, sine there are reviews. Even if it sank without a trave. Wa aleikum as Salaam!TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tagged this for notability a couple of days before it was proposed for deletion. I did a search at that point and could not find sources to meet WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Might pass AUTHOR Wisconsin Muslim Journal [1] seems semi-RS, Publisher's Weekly [2] and a Kirkus Review [3] Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And a brief mention in Quill and Quire, which is an Ontario, Canada literary publication [4] Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Oaktree b's sources/WP:NAUTHOR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing to add on previous delete comments other than to say a few book reviews does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. See WP:NBOOK for the more appropriate notability criteria. Books reviews may add to a book's notability, but not necessarily to the author without showing how and why the book is significant. The Lord of the Rings is significant, but Bored of the Rings is notable but not significant. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 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.