Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Foster

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Cecil Foster}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_Foster Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Cecil Foster}})

A BLP with just one trivial ref. Google showing little I can find. Tagged for notability for over a year. Appears promotional. Szzuk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. As always, the notability test for writers is not just the ability to technically verify that they and their work exist — it requires evidence of distinctions, such as winning a notable literary award and/or receiving enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. (And no, having been on the judging panel of a notable literary award is not a notability criterion.) But even on a ProQuest search for older media coverage that wouldn't Google, I wasn't able to find anything approaching what needs to be shown — I got a lot of hits where he was the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for, and virtually none where he was the subject of coverage written by other people, which is the kind of sourcing that's actually required. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an article about him from having to be referenced much better than this, but I simply can't find the kind of referencing he needs to have. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: Biographical information [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_UtdQ6NsvYkC&pg=PA143 here] and [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Mkh2vJ_9GpEC&pg=PA384 here]. Blackness and Modernity won the 2008 John Porter Award from the Canadian Sociological Association[https://www.csa-scs.ca/porter-award#List%20of%20past%20recipients] and has reviews including [https://www.mqup.ca/blackness-and-modernity-products-9780773531055.php][https://muse.jhu.edu/article/391971][https://www.jstor.org/stable/canajsocicahican.34.3.916?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents][https://utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/topia.19.210]. Independence has reviews including [https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/books/book-reviews/independence-by-cecil-foster-review][https://www.ottawareviewofbooks.com/single-post/2016/08/30/Independence-by-Cecil-Foster]. Has reviews for other works. If a case can't be made for WP:NACADEMIC (Professor but not named chair; 122+48+45 cites[https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22cecil+foster%22&btnG= ]), then meets NAUTHOR. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

::For the purposes of the "award-winning" criterion, we don't care about just any random award that exists — a literary award only makes its winners notable if the media care enough about that award to report its winners and nominees as news, and not if it can only be "referenced" to its own self-published website about itself. The existence or non-existence of journalism, in reliable sources, about the award is what tells us whether the award is notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Bearcat}} Doesn't meet ANYBIO#1 or NBOOK#2, but is evidence against ACADEMIC#1 and #2 (according to [https://www.uleth.ca/unews/article/u-l-sociologist-kazemipur-wins-prestigious-book-award#.XEW3GM1S_mE this] -- not necessarily unbiased, but expert -- it's the top award in Canada for a sociologist). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I have added two newspapers profiles to the page. the problem, an unfortunately familiar one, is that Nom appears to have relied on a google search. However, when dealing with a writer who was publishing back in the 90s, it is necessary to look beyond a simple google search. More htan enough reviews found in my search to make this a keeper. Page needs a lot of work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• WP:HEY I brought the page up to a a very minimal level level; it remains a page in need of an editor. However, it iss clear that there are more than enough profiles, review to pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC # 6., and WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:HEY. Thanks E.M.Gregory. /Julle (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with the reasons of those wanting to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.