Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tinker

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 no consensus and so it is eligible for the BOLD reformulation proposed below. Any disputes about this may be discussed using the normal dispute resolution process. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Tinker

[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)

Fails NSOLDIER. No RS for most of the details on the page. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 10:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Details and references are all found within the book A Message from the Falklands. MrMarmite (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone killed in battle is notable. That is basically what we would have to set notability at to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, he may qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. The book has reviews [1], including in the prestigious London Review of Books [2]. A play has been created from the book [3], and is itself the subject of scholarly interest. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if this might be redirected to a possible future article about his father Professor Hugh Tinker who has both an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article and a UK Who's Who entry but no English Wikipedia article? Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure this in itself would make him notable, but The Stage and Television Today archive should have some interesting material about how the play Falkland Sound initially was banned from Plymouth but then was staged at a smaller theatre. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the subject does have one book and it is reviewed I'm not sure I would consider them any more notable for that one book than any other author who writes one book. The play is an interesting spin on the subjects impact but the question remains to be determined whether a person's work, alone, can make them notable even if all that is referenced is the work while there is little to no in-depth coverage of the works creator. Is the work notable or the creator? While the subjects father or relatives may be notable that notability is not inherited. The subject must be notable and while the work they create or the heroics they may perform can be a catalyst in which notability is incubated and emerges, the works and events can not, themselves, be the sole source of notability that receives significant coverage independent of its creator/performer. I find, after conducting my own BEFORE search, in this case that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion. There are flashes but flashes are no better than mentions in that regard. Fails WP:SOLDIER, Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Fails WP:N, Wikipedia is not... WP:NOT --ARose Wolf 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to be about the book, which does seem to be notable, most of the article content is already about it anyways. Deletion is inappropriate because the notable book is memoirs of the person, making it really easy to re-purpose for the book itself. I can do it if consensus is reached here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more references, and more about the book and play and his letters. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (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.