Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Cave

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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the references provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cave

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's got a bit of coverage in The Guardian: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I don't know if all that adds up to notability. Maybe someone else can find better results? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:GNG The Guardian (and one of them is from The Observer) are good refs, also found a kirkus reviews [5] and one from serendipity reviews [6] (yes i know they are a blogsite but ...:) Have incorporated them into the article. If there is a wikieditor interested in this guy, more could probably be found. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Coolabahapple said it better than I can. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2015 (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.