Deletion of Ian Parks

Comment: Substantial coverage in reliable sources exists: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00138389908599208 this article in ''English Studies'' discusses his work in some depth, as does http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/25869/1/Piperides_Jaques_108027019_Thesis.pdf this recent doctoral thesis. The article also cites a review in ''Acumen (magazine)|Acumen'' – the review doesn't seem to be available online, but we don't require sources to be. The interview in ''Dream Catcher'' in the external links section is also quite a good source – I know some editors don't think interviews should contribute to establishing notability, but typically established publications don't interview just anybody. The current state of the article is indeed poor, but the list of works and the useful references strongly suggest  isn't the right approach. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per , , and ESSAY. It is written in the form of a witty review or essay. I'm not sure he;s notable anyway, based on the lack of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:NOT||WP:NOTESSAY||WP:SIGCOV)