Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard T Griffiths

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard T Griffiths

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

Orphaned article which does not meet WP:BIO, provided sources are either primary ones (books authored by this person) or mention him only in passing. Lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Deprod'd and tagged for months with reference concerns without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator forgot to mention that this is the product of a Single-Purpose Account. The footnotes seem to indicate creation either by the subject or someone extremely close to him. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness at this time. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I agree with the nominator that there are significant problems with the article, the subject does appear to meet inclusion criteria - most notably WP:PROF #5 as Professor of Social and Economic History at Leiden University ([1]) and #4 as his works are cited as textbooks at Queen's University Belfast ([2]) and, via the Europaeum, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne and University of Oxford ([3]) . Therefore we need to improve the article, not delete it. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced this topic rises to the levels described in WP:PROF. The title of "Professor" is not sufficient to meet WP:PROF #5 and there is no indication on the bio page at Leiden University that he holds a named chair as described in #5. The Queen's University list is a further reading list among several other books, not a textbook citation. The Sorbonne and Oxford link is not really clear what Griffith's contribution here is. Is this a seminar he taught there? Acknowledging students from his class? And we are still missing the kind of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources demanded by WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --The subject would appear to be notable, but I agree that it is a horrible article, and quite possibly autobiography. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are given to establish notability of this historian, however, this page needs a huge clean up. Tinton5 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (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.