Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E T Davies


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

E T Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources to indicate notability Miszatomic (Talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I have just done some improvement on this article. It still needs more work.  Though there are no explicit sources, the Chuch in Wales Congress Handbook 1953 is clearly impliedly one.  Editing 18 volumes of a minor journal (probably over 18 years) is probably notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found one RS with some quick web searching and added it to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this qualifies for notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC as it now stands. One source, albeit reliable, and reasonably independent does not do it. But this seems like a proper case for WP:IAR. The single source does provide adequate evidence that he meets the "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" requirement if we found a second reliable source. I do not have access to either the DNB or the back issues of The Times could someone check those?  I found a biographical note, entitled "The Author" in Davies's Religion and society in the nineteenth century (1981) and have added it to the article, it is not that independent, but it is a second source.  Unfortunately the access I have to it is only through snippet view in Google Books.   --Bejnar (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (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.