Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Adam Davies (author) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 21 May 2022 (Adam Davies (author): Closed as keep (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 01:40, 21 May 2022 by Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) (Adam Davies (author): Closed as keep (XFDcloser))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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)

Adam Davies (author)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Adam Davies (author) (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)
The Frog King (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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)

*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)

  • 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
    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)
  • Keep: Kbabej won me over. — Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
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.