Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George R. Ursul

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Ursul

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

Article is sourced to ancestry.com and does not establish why Ursul is notable. A search on Google News finds nothing. A search on Google Books finds his name mentioned only in bibliographies citing a book he wrote, as well as a three line mention in the Harvard alumni newsletter. Nothing on newspapers.com. A search on JSTOR finds a few papers he authored but nothing about him specifically. He does not appear to have an H-Index that would qualify him under NPROF, nor has he held a named chair or anything similar. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However the delete rationale is wrong. The article is sourced to www.familysearch.org, a wholly owned website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is totally different than the commercial family history website ancestry.com. However, in theory the depository location used to find a document is not very important. There may be some sources findable through familysearch.org that would pass as reliable sources, although most are either user generated or primary and thus not useful to establish notability. The main exception is their obituary database, but even that aims to be very broad. In this case, the cited document is the Social Security Death Index entry, apparently for Ursul, which is a primary source for his death of the level that would exist for every person in the US who someone can claim death benefits from social security for, which in no way adds towards notability. The sources cited in the nomination also in no way add up to notability as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ looks like a non-notable historian. No notable works. (feel free to ping me to reconsider if you find notability that I missed.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC) ~~My error, I missed the 3 book reviews. Weak Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Weak keep. He was a Fulbright scholar, one of his (edited) books has multiple published reviews, he had an obituary published in a major (but local) newspaper, and he was listed in a specialist who's-who publication. I've added more sources to the article documenting these things. It's still a weak case for WP:PROF, but I think there's a better case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've added another source which reports a lecture by Ursul and has a ~150 word/3 inch profile of Ursul in the Lowell Sun. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book reviews and newspaper articles collectively satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He looks to me like a NN history lecturer, who did not get a doctorate and published little. Even if he edited a significant collection of academic essays, which was well reviewed, it is not enough to push him over the threshold into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book that was reviewed was a festschrift, which, even if it contained notable essays, does not give much support to the notability of the scholar who co-edited the collection. Ursal looks like a non-notable historian. No notable works. No other claim to notability, although he was an active layman in his denomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any claim of meeting an SNG, and the WP:MILL obituary/local coverage of a speech at a church is a terribly weak claim for meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He looks like he just falls short of notability. I checked Google scholar for scholar profile's he's got very little on there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (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.