Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Denby (academic)

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 no consensus. There is no doubt that this article fails GNG, which leaves EricEnfermero's argument based on WP:AUTHOR. Unfortunately, it was not clear to me on what basis WP:AUTHOR is supposed to apply (ie, which of the bullet points) so not surprisingly there was no clear rebuttal of this argument either. However, I note that the book in question gets a decent number of citation. As Lesser Cartographies commented, an article about the book may be a better option. There was no clear consensus for this either, but it remains an option for future editor discussion. In the meantime, I am retaining the material in this article per WP:PRESERVE SpinningSpark 13:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Denby (academic)

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable academic. Fails gng. Snappy (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:AUTHOR. Added sources to multiple independent book reviews. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references are 3 book reviews for a single book. None of the references is about the person. Book reviews might be evidence for the notability of the book, but they are not evidence for the notability of the author, especially the author of only one book. LaMona (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR #3 addresses book reviews, but it does apply to WP entries about authors. It doesn't make any distinctions based on how of the author's books meet that book review criterion. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sentimental Narrative and the Social Order in France. The citation counts for his journal publications are pretty low (which may be expected in this field; I don't know). We have more than enough WP:RS for a solid article on the book. That's probably the best way to retain this information. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2014 (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.