Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kevan

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 delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. A difficult decision with the authoring of two chapters in The Future of the NHS and being a talking head leagle beagle in the UK media. On balance, these are not enough to assert notability and the career as a barrister is not illuminated enough by the article to suggest a notable legal career. (aeropagitica) 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Kevan

Questionable notability and written entirely by the subject (see page history). Cordless Larry 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence that he meets the WP:BIO criteria. The most usual ways for lawyers to become notable are "making a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and/or "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Neither of these appear to be the case here. Thryduulf 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A vanity article, yes, but notability is asserted. Some of those books he has written seem notable, as they are available from major book vendors and libraries like Amazon[1], Wildy Legal Bookshop[2] and Adlibris [3], University of London Institure of Advanced Studies [4]. He has also figured in some BBC articles[5][6] where his opinions have been sought. --Ezeu 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment assertions of notablity only matter for speedy deletion, for AfD the assertions of notablity need to verifably meet the criteria. Thryduulf 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

and note that even blatant vanity published works are often available on Amazon- availability there should NEVER be used to establish notability for a work or an author. Badgerpatrol 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Being a rent-a-quote doesn't make someone notable. Blisco 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The books don't seem to assert anything. Law books (and articles) in the UK are often written by not so succesful lawyers and are in essence a cheap means of advertising. Same goes with getting on the BBC. If there were third party reviews of his work I'd be more impressed. The stuff about the Conservative Collegiate Forum could be a claim to notability if there were some ("substantial") press coverage cited, but at the moment there isn't. JASpencer 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am the person under discussion and was new to wikipedia until this year. I have apologised for starting the page as vanity publishing and I repeat that apology again.The page was allowed to stay on the basis that I asserted notability as a writer. I wholly accept that some of my books help advertise my practice although if you do a search of barristers' chambers you will find that very few barristers have even written one book. However, of the ten books that I have now written, I would suggest that three are important books in their own right: Email, the Internet and the Law was one of the first on this subject and Professor Richard Susskind described it in the Times newspaper as "an important new book" at the time of its publication; Sports Personal Injury is the only book on the subject and was therefore once again breaking new ground and has attracted interest internationally; finally, I contributed two chapters to The Future of the NHS which also includes chapters from all three political parties and most of the major think tanks. As for my political involvement, I did not add the story about the Conservative Collegiate Forum but it is true and was covered in both The Times and The Daily Telegraph in 1993, among other newspapers. As for my media appearances, I make no great claims save that I am the regular legal voice for the Jeremy Vine Show which is the largest daytime news and current affairs show in the country (with around 5 million listeners). Once again, I am genuinely sorry for any offence caused by vanity publishing. I shall leave well alone now other than to contribute to this discussion and will be very happy if you cut down my entry substantially. However, I will continue to contribute to wikipedia in the future and thank you all for a great site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timkevan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Comment OK, so now we have a number of claims for notability of a junior barrister:

- That two of the books he wrote solo are important in their own right, presumably they would meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). For the moment the fact that none of these books have an uncontested Wikipedia article should be seen as a sign that this is not proven.

- That Kevan wrote for The Future of the NHS, which does have its own article (let's pass by the main author of this book. However as the introduction for that article says it "brings together forty-four leading experts in the fields of health care, politics and policy making". So Kevan is one of forty-four. Not a claim to notability.

- The Conservative Collegiate Forum information may be a claim for notability - but it's still not cited.

- The Jeremy Vine show is notable, but being a contributor would only be notable if he was essentially a co-host.

JASpencer 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I have restored the two books that Kevan cites as his most significant. On balance I am happy with him having an entry. The combination of his writings and media appearances make him worthy of an entry. <POV>If Big Brother contestants and rappers who have released a couple of CDs get in here someone who has already done what Kevan has done (and no doubt he will do a lot more) should not be excluded. </POV> TerriersFan 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment So is Wikipedia a prize for achievement? JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: "Article A should be kept because we have articles on utterly unrelated topics B, C and D" is generally not considered a good "keep" argument by the closing admin. Just saying. --Aaron 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with gusto/userfy if not already done. Where is notability asserted here? He certainly does not meet the criteria for an author, unless he can demonstrate that his books are CORE texts of general application- i.e. sales numbering in the thousands. As noted above, it is quite common for barristers in the UK to contribute papers and or books. If there are multiple external full reviews in e.g. The Times or similiar, then let's see links to them, and it may sway my thinking here. However, on the basis of the facts as they stand, I see no evidence that this gentleman deserves to be in here as an author or academic. So, his other two claims to notability are that he's a barrister and went to Cambridge- as far as I'm aware, neither of these are covered in the notability guidelines. Get yourself on myspace Mr. Kevan- that's the place for popinjays such as yourself, not here. Out out out. I note for the record that Mr. Kevan also added a nice vicarious vanity page for one of his chums, who has even less of a claim to notability- Daniel Barnett. Badgerpatrol 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason to believe that Tim Kevan started this article in bad faith. He was unaware of the rules and has since apologised for inserting his own article. He also seems to have made quite a few good edits to non-related articles. While we may disagree with him on his notability - could we please stop the name calling? Most vanity articles start out as good faith efforts by people who don't fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia. JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Why is it name-calling to refer to someone who incorporates a biography of themselves and their workmates into an encyclopaedia for the purposes of self-advertisement as a "popinjay"? It's a simple assertion of fact. I struggle to understand how the motivation of someone (ANYone) who composes their own biography here can possibly be described as good faith, unless they are a very foolish and myopic person. It strikes me that Tim Kevan is not particularly foolish or myopic- although he obviously knows an opportunity for free self-promotion when he sees one (see his comment above, for example). The subject edited his article repeatedly over a period of 2 months. He has indeed made some good quality edits to unrelated articles- but many (if not most) of his contribs appear to pertain to himself directly, his father, or his friends and workmates. Very poor show indeed. Badgerpatrol 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - probably mere with the author's user page. Isn't it against policy to allow autobiographical articles? --Dennisthe2 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not a full-blown policy, but it's strongly discouraged as a guideline, and WP:AUTO makes it clear that anyone who does should expect an AfD. --Aaron 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity article, doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. If it could be rewritten and assertions included as to notability then it would be ok, but I doubt it can be done. Localzuk^(talk) 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)*
• Delete No evidence presented of passing WP:BIO, and I can find none (e.g. in Lexis-Nexis). Pan Dan 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this was autobiog but has been cleaned up since. This chap writes significant text books, appears on the media and readers might want to find out about him and seems up and coming; I think he's OK. Bridgeplayer 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can you demonstrate that they actually are significant? Badgerpatrol 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete even after cleanup. I'll admit he skirts the edge of WP:BIO enough that I had to think about it, but in the end I still don't think he's quite reached notability yet. Maybe if one of his books had been more popular or if he'd gotten some mainstream media coverage somewhere. He does seem like the sort of person who will qualify for an article in the future, but not quite yet. Nice hair though. --Aaron 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, WP:BIO failure, and per the above arguments. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is on the news a lot (BBC, Sky etc) and people will want to look him up. Useful to have independent content for them here, apart from his own website. Garryw16 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Garryw16's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the subject of this debate, Tim Kevan, again. I very much accept the criticisms made of me and again I apologise. It seems that most of the writers are prepared to accept the entry if there are independent references etc. There have been a number of reviews of my books and references to my student politics (something which was added to my entry by someone else) in national newspapers and publications. These are only available it seems to subscribers. However, for your benefit I have done a search of just one of these newspapers, The Times, and have put the references online at: http://www.timkevan.com/articles/times%20articles.doc. I would be very happy that others did searches of other newspapers and publications. I am concerned at getting overly involved in this debate but the suggestion of no references is inaccurate. Tim Kevan

Comment I'm sure youd didn't mean it but you shouldn't vote twice. I've added in the stuff about the CCF to give people some idea of it's notability or otherwise. (There's also an article about this here although badly written). Personally I think this person is less notable than Emily Barr, who doesn't have her own article. If the ins and outs of the Maastricht debate and Major's dog days become better covered on Wikipedia then I could change my mind. On the e-mail law book, if this is the extent of its notability I think we should forget it. It's said to be an important book in a short review in the Times. There's no indication that it's influential on other books or on cases. If you could prove this then it could be kept in. JASpencer 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Disclaimer that I was a Cambridge contemporary, although not in the same party, and did some work to wikify the article. I admit it is close to the line, but senior officers of student political organisations can become notable if they are mentioned in the press. Don't know enough about the legal field to say but authors of legal textbooks does support claim of notability. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Tim Kevan was notable as a proxy in a fight that is otherwise unmentioned in wikipedia. Conor Burns - the other candidate, who's achieved a lot more subsequently - does not have an article in Wikipedia. As coverage improves of Maastricht and the Tory hari-kiri that was the John Major premiership then the Conor Burns affair may be included together with some of the supporting cast. Other than his selection to the post there is no other evidence of his effect on the now defunct organisation or the wider Conservative Party. As to legal textbooks, well no one apart including Tim Kevan has started any articles for them or argued that they would meet notability standards. JASpencer 12:13, 7 October 2006 (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.