Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred F. Young


 * 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Alfred F. Young

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of the many poor biographical stubs written by sockpuppets of Novonium. It was nominated for CSD G5 but this was declined on the basis that the subject "is a serious American historian". (I'm not sure that's a valid counter-argument to G5). But this article, while allowing its blocked creator the satisfaction of seeing some of their work surviving in the encyclopedia, adds little of value to the encyclopedia. It is an article about an academic whose bibliography is sourced to Goodreads and includes no dates, publishers or isbns; nothing is said about his study area or work, although from the one good source it appears there is much to be said. It would be better for the encyclopedia to delete this stub and allow a serious editor to create a new article about this historian, without allowing any article creation credit to the blocked editor. Pam D  09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the opening line makes it sound like he was inprisoned in libraries. Also, how did the son of "polish immigrants" come to have the surname young? Was only his mother an immigrants? Did the family change their surname? Does the latter indicate they were Jews trying to pass for white to avoid discrimination as a people of color? The article begs lots of questions it does not answer and the sources are not better. Being a "serious historian" is not ground to keep an article, and being one like J. D. Haws who never misses a change to write in a more humorous vein is not grounds to delete. Haws The Mormon Image in the American Mind published by Oxford University Press may be enough alone to show him a notable historian, and elsewhere he has presented academic conference talks tracing Mormon intelectual history. However his BYU bio shows he does not take himself seriously, it would be hard to call him a "serious historian" with a straigh face. OK, maybe I am making fun of ill thought lines too much, but the net result is that we lack the sources showing that A F Young is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to check for sources? Carrite (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment put another way I see nothing that says that Young passes academic notability guideline 1, and nothing even suggesting we should expect him to pass any others. Since he did write multiple books, and our sourcing is such it is hard to say if these are academic or popular books, he might also pass the notability guidelines for writers. However none of the sources suggest that. Goodreads is a user generated site that aims to have entries on every author ever published. We aim only to cover people who have received coverage in reliable secondary material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So true. So did you spend 5 minutes or 30 seconds even checking for "coverage in reliable secondary material" or did you just rush out to vote DELETE yet again? Carrite (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Some of these are cited - e.g.    , reviewed:      . Some coverage of him: . I will stub down article - while I understand the urge to WP:TNT at current state, but the publication list is good.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The links provided by Icewhiz satisfy GNG. There are many more reviews of his work, some of which are accessible without journal subscriptions. Here are two more links about The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution: Chicago tribune and American Prospect. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-cited on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep - Not a CV of a living historian, but core for a biography of a deceased historian. Easy pass of GNG. THIS piece calling him the "Godfather of Artisan Studies" I find particularly compelling. Carrite (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And HERE is another piece by the noted labor historian Leon Fink, "Remembering Al Young." Honest to god, I don't understand how a terrible nomination like this can be made. WP:BEFORE anyone? Carrite (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "It would be better for the encyclopedia to delete this stub and allow a serious editor to create a new article about this historian, without allowing any article creation credit to the blocked editor." — Oh, there you go. This is a case of obsessing about the editor rather than the content, settling scores, and attempting to "punish" a vrag naroda rather than an actual notability challenge based on, y'know, notability. Ugh. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For good measure, HERE is substantial coverage of Al Young in the book "Writing Early American History," by Alan Taylor, published by University of Pennsylvania Press. TROUT for the nominator and scorn for anyone supporting the nomination... Carrite (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And HERE is an extensive memorial summarizing Dr. Young's career by the Newberry Library of Chicago. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS memorializing Young. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Historian Staughton Lynd CITING YOUNG as one of his "mentors," along with Howard Zinn. And so on, and so forth............ Carrite (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is quite clearly a notable and influential historian. His books were widely reviewed, widely cited, and are widely held in libraries. Multiple memorials paint him as having a foundational influence on his field . With that in mind, I have to say I find the nomination troubling. apparently believes this to be a viable article, so is there any reason to delete it other than to WP:PUNISH the creator? If it can be expanded, what's the difference between leaving a stub and leaving a red link? What "credit" do editors get for creating articles? I certainly haven't been getting mine! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm working on a rewrite. If anyone has a spare moment and mad investigative skills, I am not finding a DOB, which was sometime in 1925 in New York City. Feel free to dig and add!!! Carrite (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, IP editor. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The high number of published in-depth reviews of his books, including one in the New York Times, gives him a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR, regardless of whether he also passes WP:PROF. And separately, the seven references now in the article directly about Young himself also give him a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 8 September 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.