- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding !delete votes Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Mark Vanhoenacker
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mark Vanhoenacker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:PROMO: Content made for Advertising of this person's book - Skyfaring: A Journey with a Pilot. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens ( talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Will let the AfD run. But, I wanted to call out two things, the page was created well after the book's launch (2015). I was the creator of this page back in 2017, and specifically responding to the Paid-edit charge, I self-certify that there has been absolutely no payments for any of my online actions, including editing any articles on Wikipedia. The same has been posted on my page as well. Ktin ( talk) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject of this article has significant coverage in reliable media, and passes the requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. Coverage of his work is by independent sources, reliable sources, and is more than just a passing mention, and there are multiple such sources of repute. Furthermore, this article has been written to ensure that the language is absolutely consistent of WP:NPOV and is factual, and not infringing on WP:PROMO.
- Just a brief snapshot of the extent of this subject's presence in reliable media. A combination of all of these factors, will tell us that this is an subject worth 'keep'ing. Furthermore, there is an assertion being made in the nomination that this article exists only for promoting a book from the subject, the coverage below can clearly prove that the author's notability is not predicated on the book, though the book was a bestseller fwiw, back in 2015.
Publication Articles / Results Type Financial Times 307 Coverage + Aviation Columns + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22 The Guardian 42 Coverage + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22 The Economist 49 Coverage + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22 New York Times 160 Coverage + Aviation Columns + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22
- PS: The number of articles (count) in the above table is not to be misinterpreted as me emphasizing counts in favor of significance. However, clicking on the links on the RHS should give a view of the nature of in-depth / significant articles on the subject's area of expertise.
- Ktin ( talk) 21:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- The subject seems to be quite prolific, and there are lots of sources including those identified above. However, many of these are interviews or articles that he's written (I note that he's been an FT columnist, for instance), and so aren't independent sources. However, given that his first book has received significant media attention, I think he might meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 4c. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:08, 17 August 2020 (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.