Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Goodheart


 * 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Adam Goodheart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All sources about him seem to be affiliated or are really about his 1861 book instead of him. Fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep without prejudice against moving: The book clearly meets WP:NBOOK (NYT and WP among other reviews), but with limited coverage outside the book he doesn't clearly meet WP:GNG and may not meet WP:NAUTHOR (NAUTHOR#3c for the book is closest). There are thus two good options, neither involving deletion: either cover the book under his article, or cover him under an article on the book. Both require an article and a redirect. If there is to only be one article, I prefer keeping as author since it can legitimately build if/as RS coverage of him happens to appear. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep We need encyclopedic coverage of this author and his book. I would not object moving the content to an article about the book. But simply deleting this article would be bad for the encyclopedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Believe the article could be expanded in the future. Also found 244 mentions of his name in the New York Times as a columnist, reviewer and/or quoted going back to 2011. Mostly civil war or history coverage. Conlinp (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar shows his 1861 book being cited 61 times and a variety of his other writings being cited in other works. It's difficult for historians, isn't it? They do the writing and are seldom the subject of it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep; exceptionally well put, . ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2019 (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.