Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Scott Britton


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A. Scott Britton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He may be worthy of note for his academic work, but I don't see that he meets the notability guidelines. None of the sources given in the article is an independent reliable source with substantial coverage. As for WP:NACADEMIC, three of his dictionaries have two or three citations each at Google Scholar, though in the case of one of them, all three citations were by one person; and I don't see any indication that he meets any of the other criteria for academics. Largoplazo (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of in-depth sources needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete The books the subject has authored/translated don't seem to be notable enough. No evidence that this article meets WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Subject's books are, indeed, notable, particularly the two titles that are firsts in the field—The Zapotec dictionary, and the translation title. With regards to the information from the original nominator for deletion, it should be reiterated that the subject's works have been the subject of scholarly reference in numerous instances. Further, the subject is a verifiable professional member of the PEN American Center, a prestigious literary organization with strict merit-based membership protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.97.135 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  — 108.51.97.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Clarification: You aren't reiterating what I said. I said I found few citations. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Point taken, though, you're quite right, I wasn't reiterating what you said, but emphasizing the existence of the citations. And, our individual opinions as to what constitutes a few must be what all opinions are, subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.97.135 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding PEN America membership: "PEN welcomes to its membership all literary writers and those belonging to the larger literary community. Writers should have one book published; playwrights and screenwriters: one work produced in a professional setting; others should have achieved recognition in the literary field. Nominations are not necessary. While admission is at the discretion of the Membership Committee, PEN aims for inclusion, recognizing that a growing and vibrant membership strengthens and informs all of its efforts on behalf of writers and their readers." Even if all opinions are subjective, this is substantially less stringent that what "strict membership protocols" connotes to me. The standards today are only slightly looser than they were before June 2011: "Prior to a unanimous vote by PEN’s Board of Trustees on June 15, most authors were required to have published two books to join PEN. PEN’s by-laws have now been amended to allow writers to apply for membership after the publication of their first book. Playwrights and screenwriters may join after producing one work in a professional setting." Largoplazo (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability requirements and does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC. --  Dane talk  02:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough citations for this field to show passing of Academic criteria 1. PEN has too losse membership guidelines to be considered a limited membership group for the purposes of that academic notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WorldCat shows his dictionaries and phrasebooks have only double-digit holdings. Not really notable according to our conventional standards. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.