Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Doel

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. Consensus to keep Nosebagbear (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Doel

[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)

Doel seems notable exclusively for the book that Helene Hanff wrote about him, 84, Charing Cross Road. I couldn't find any independent coverage of him, and what little I did find is about Hanff primarily (e.g. [1]) or about the book or film.

I couldn't find an archival of the Petersfield Post article mentioned in the cited sources; the other sources cited are Hanff's obituary in The Telegraph and various self-published websites. Nothing indicating Doel has independent notability from the book.

Propose redirecting to 84, Charing Cross Road. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doel is the subject of a book, a TV show, a play that was performed in the West End and on Broadway, two radio adaptations and a movie, in which Anthony Hopkins played Doel. The book and the movie are considered cult classics. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look @Cullen328. Do you have sources showing they meet GNG here? I was unable to find good sources, and I'd be happy to use them to expand and improve the article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entire book substantially about a person is an excellent source, as are its critical reviews, and the reviews of the various adaptations. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the book itself is significant, reliable, and independent. I'm not convinced reviews of the book are by default (perhaps if they did independent research on the subject, not if they're just covering the book). Adaptations and their derivative coverage I would actively argue against; beyond the issue with reviews, adaptations are generally dramatizations not subject to the same standards as non-fiction. We don't have an article on John Laroche, but if we did, we surely would not be sourcing content from reviews of Adaptation (film).

Ultimately this strikes me as someone who isn't notable outside of feature journalism coverage from a single source (it's essentially WP:BIO1E with the added issue that there's not even a second source to pull verifiable content from). It feels insufficient for building an independent article on them. I'd be happy to be shown wrong here though. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m with Cullen on this. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is part of English and American social history. Wededd (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2023 (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.