Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Vernon Williams


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

David Vernon Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Procedural afd nom. This article was prodded, and I removed the prod. I feel the article should be kept, but also that it is close enough to the limit of notability that it should be brought here for full debate. None of the individual items in this person's biography wopuld pass WP:N, but the combination of them is probably enough to justify the article. Grutness...wha?  01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable, third-party sources can be found to support the claims, per WP:N and WP:BLP. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not appear particularly notable and no independent sources. (Talk Contribs) 08:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm actually inclined to believe that he is notable (particularly for the Treaty of Waitangi work), but can't find any references and without references it's got to be deleted. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found and added a number of works by Williams where the identity was established by both subject matter and full name. All are linked to the catalogue of the NLNZ. I consider this satisfactory evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Stuart, above - there may be notability here, but we can't document it. No objection to an article later on, if sources become available or if notability becomes clearer. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't find any references? There are quite a few here and here! It's just that they're all under "David Williams" rathder than "David Vernon Williams". Shall we start with these:, , , ... I suspect that if I had a Lexis password I could see whether this also provided evidence. Grutness...wha?  23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per list of sources provided by Grutness.- gadfium 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Keep per Grutness, appears notable enough and influential. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lists of publications displayed by Grutness is useful but the GS cites to them are weak. Perhaps this is not unexpected for a subject of interest to few but New Zeaand scholars. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (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.