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 SNOW/procedural close.The nomination was in good faith, but being autobiographically written is not valid reason for deletion, especially in this case where the subject is clearly notable under both our subject specific notability guidelines (WP:AUTHOR) and the general notability guideline and the article is well-sourced. Mr. Hardcastle should be commended for his adherence to high ethical standards and this AfD has no reason to stay open for a full week. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hardcastle[edit]

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

Needs to be written by third party, not by the person in the article. With apologies.. KHardcase (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep There is no problem at all KHardcase. There is no need for apology. I assume you are maybe new to posting here at wikipedia. Welcome to the pkace! This is a great article already. I explained on your talk page that although it is discouraged for you to edit the article, you make leave suggestions, sources, or ideas on the talk page, and I or others will evaluate what you post, and use what we can to expand the article and make it and wikipedia better. Congratulations on your award. Your stories sound interesting. If you understand all of this or if you have any question you may put them on my talk page or the article talk page. If you agree not to edit the article about you, I can take the autobiography notice down. As far as this deletion discussion, I have voted to snow keep the article, because I think this has just been misunderstanding. You may discuss or vote as well. All are welcomed to participate. Again, thank you for understanding, Let me know if you have any questions. an congratulations on your award. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest is not the end of the world around here, if the article is fixable. While we certainly discourage people from starting an article about themselves, doing that does not always automatically force deletion of the article — rather, if the base notability claim and its sourceability pass our tests, then we keep the article anyway and just clean it up for neutrality and formatting issues. (In fact, Kevin, you were already on my radar as a potential future article topic as it is, because I'm the guy who updated our Danuta Gleed and Trillium Book Award articles with this year's shortlists and winners — which means that in both of the articles that already had your name in them redlinked and waiting for an article, I'm who put it there.) The awards in question are notable ones, they are sourceable, and Debris has been reviewed in both of Canada's major national newspapers — and that adds up to enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Keep and I'll take a pass at fixing it up right now — I also agree with Fouetté that we should just WP:SNOW close this as an honest misunderstanding. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep agree with above comments, the editors can help the article rather than deleting, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.