Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Oliver Cauldwell


 * 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) Kraxler (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

David Oliver Cauldwell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-noable. No evidence of WP:PROF — James Cantor (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (from nom). Although it says "books," the list on the page is of booklets. (That is, subject did not publish 50 books in 1947.)  No evidence of other (more scholarly) productivity that would meet the threshold of any WP:PROF criteria or WP:GNG. — James Cantor (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If Caudwell introduced the term "transsexualism", and there are sources to show as much, then doesn't that suggest notability? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term was actually introduced by Magnus Hirschfeld. The RS used to claim that it was Cauldwell actually says the very opposite.  Here is the exact quote:  "Although sexologist David O. Cauldwell is often credited for coining the term 'transsexual,' it was Magnus Hishfeld who should be credited since he mentioned the term 'seelischer Transsexualismus.'" — James Cantor (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes on page 42 (or page 17 of the PDF: "Born in Cleveland in 1897, David Oliver Cauldwell earned his medical degree at the National University of Mexico and began his career as a general practitioner. During World War II he served as a contract surgeon in the army, a physician for war industries, and a War Department psychiatrist who examined recruits for the armed forces. His wartime work with recruits brought him into contact with, and educated him on, a range of sexual problems." He and his research are discussed on pages 42–45 of the book.  He is also discussed here: "Journal of the West;Winter2012, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p77 The article discusses the 1964 trial of Kansas publisher Henry J. Haldeman, who was indicted by a U.S. federal grand jury in 1961 for utilizing the U.S. mails to distribute obscene booklets and advertisements of a sexual nature during the 1960s. The article also discusses the professional relationship between Haldeman and U.S. medical doctor, sexologist, and author David Oliver Cauldwell, the concept of censorship, and American attitudes toward sexual behavior in the 20th century." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Oliver Cauldwell to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete no indication of passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. That does not make sense: The first RS provided (page 17 or elsewhere) provides no mention of Cauldwell, and the mention given in the second RS (although well and good) does not meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF. Mere mention in an RS does not meet WP criteria for having an independent page. — James Cantor (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant the 17th page of the PDF, not the 17th page of the book. Or you can go to page 42 of the book. The subject is discussed extensively in pages 42–45 of the book. Cunard (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, yes, the 17th page of that book says that Cauldwell wrote several pamphlets about sex, which no one is contesting. Rather, I am pointing out that that such pamphlets (regardless of number) do not meet WP:PROF, which indicateS not only that such works need to be entire books but also that such books need to receive substantial mention (such as from book reviews in recognized outlets).  Booklets do not have the same status as books, and no RS is available that is equivalent to a scholarly book review. I agree that such folks may be over the threshold, but nothing says that Cauldwell actually is. — James Cantor (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The book provide significant biographical background about the subject. This is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF but it is enough to satisfy Notability. WP:PROF says that a subject that meets other notability criteria like Notability (people) and Notability still can be notable even if they do not meet WP:PROF. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the biographical sources in journals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per what bio sources I do not contest the content of the "keep" comments, but I do contest only that those comments meet any of the criteria mentioned in WP:PROF.  Mere mention/discussion in RS's does not meet WP:PROF. There is no opposition to mention of the subject in relevant pages, but none of (passing) mentions in the the RS's given justify creating a page unto itself. — James Cantor (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability (academics) says: "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." I believe that the subject meets Notability (people) and Notability because he has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". He was discussed in pages 42–45 of the 2002 book How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United States (published by Harvard University Press). Cunard (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would you list, please, what those RS's are? The only ones which claim that he coined the terms "transsexual" have turned out to be wrong.  If there is any other RS that has listed any other claim to notability, no one gas cited what it is. — James Cantor (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * He coined the word "transsexual" in English. Magnus Hirschfeld coined the term "transsexualismus" in German. It is not wrong, but nuanced. It is about the exact term, not the concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you list, please, what those RS's are? – I cited one right above your reply: a 2002 book published by Harvard University Press, How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United States. The second source is the Journal of the West article I listed above that "discusses the professional relationship between Haldeman and U.S. medical doctor, sexologist, and author David Oliver Cauldwell". Both of these are very reputable sources. The coverage on pages 42–45 of the book and the substantial coverage in the journal article are significant enough for the subject to pass Notability, which defines "significant coverage" as "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Cunard (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2015 (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.