Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wiseman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay Wiseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 00:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a well published author. The article includes ample references and the links above show more. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AUTH suggests (1) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors (2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique (3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (4) work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Which of these do you think is satisfied? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Vegaswikian. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a suggestion for which condition of WP:AUTH he satisfies? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those editors are clearly saying that they consider the subject to pass the general notability guideline, which means that there is no need to look at any of the subsidiary guidelines such as WP:AUTH. Please note that I am only commenting here for clarification purposes, as I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly he meets the GNG. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those editors are clearly saying that they consider the subject to pass the general notability guideline, which means that there is no need to look at any of the subsidiary guidelines such as WP:AUTH. Please note that I am only commenting here for clarification purposes, as I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The GNG calls for "significant coverage". I don't have access to the newspaper articles, perhaps one of the other contributors to the debate can oblisge with quotations? All I can see is coverage saying that he co-founded Greenery Press, was 52 in 2001, and that he is the author of at least some of the books attributed to him in the article. Is that "significant"? I don't see it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (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.