Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dalby


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet the notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. The page seems to have been created by a sock puppet of User:Andrew Dalby (For evidence, see (mid-way down with title Excursus: the authoress of the ‘Rediscovering Homer’ and ‘Andrew Dalby’ articles on Wikipedia) Furius (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't created by a sock-puppet but by a good friend. It all seems a long time ago, but we're still friends! so, might as well get that detail right. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep His book Language in Danger, has enough reviews and feature coverage in significant publications to pass WP:NBOOK, which alone carries Dalby past WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like that is also true of Bacchus: A Biography.  More to the point, a Proquest news archive search turned up reviews of many of his books in major newspapers, feature articles about him and one or another roof this books, interviews, I added a couple, scanned the rest of the first page of he search,and  stopped.   I don't know why Nom brought this here.  Possible an instance of our rampant PRESENTISM.  But this author is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:NAUTHOR does it say that having written a work which passes WP:NBOOK makes an author notable? Furius (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * hi, no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR, although as Dalby has written a number of notable books (not all have a standalone article), this is a moot point. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NAUTHOR point 3 says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". This is clearly a stricter standard than WP:NBOOK: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.". The latter explicitly allows for reviews of all forms; the former requires either a long study have been produced of the author, or for them to have been reviewed in periodicals. It seems bizarre that an episode of a television series devoted to Dalby's work would not establish his notability, but a few short newspaper articles are claimed to do so. Furius (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The caution about relying on a single episode of a television series seems likely to be based on the fact that some television series consist primarily of expositions of sensational but essentially trivial material or fringe theories; most newspaper articles do not cover such material in depth, and those that do are often repetitions of the same original review, with more or less material excised, rather than independent articles or reviews. But this still comes across like an attempt to remove an article about a scholar on technical grounds, rather than because you're arguing that his work is trivial or non-notable.  If you want to argue that it is, please explain why you think that the whole body material stands on par with works such as, say, Pickwick's "Observations on the Theory of Tittlebats", because that's not at all obvious to the other participants so far.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; and there are multiple, independent, nontrivial sources about (reviews in scholarly journals of) his books. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm afraid that the nominator's reasoning in this case is underwhelming. Even a cursory glance at the page suggests that the subject is notable, having published works relevant to multiple disciplines that have been covered in other relevant media.  I feel that the nominator needs to provide more substantial reasoning as to why none of these works or their reception by others are important enough to make the subject notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia.  The question of the article's authorship seems secondary to me, as long as the contents are notable and verifiable.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR ie. his books are "known" and have numerous reviews, nominator apparently being unaware of point 3 of WP:AUTHOR applying to book(s) is a concern. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just the reviews on the two bluelinked book titles are enough for WP:AUTHOR. I imagine there's more to be found for his other books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2018 (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.