Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Hilton (diarist)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

George Hilton (diarist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Only reference is a primary one, written by the author himself. RadioFan (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep: The source is reliable and published, with mention of the book, the author and the publisher. Moreover, the subject itself is entirely verifiable as the library catalogue to the original MS is cited. The source is available, secondary and independent of the subject. The reference is not a primary one, since it consists of a transcription of a diary (which is the subject, not a source) with full editorial coverage. The subject meets the notability guideline. Moreover, I can't think why anyone should want to delete an article on an important 18th century diary and diarist. It seems that the proposer for deletion attempts to enforce the "rules" blindly (no offense intended) without taking into consideration that articles like this are what Wikipedia is all about, and that deleting it will do nothing but impoverish our grand project. Nick Michael (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe one or two book hits but this is basically WP:EXISTS (or existed). There's nothing here that could establish notability for the person. I searched for The Rake's Diary and I see a few hits as well but nothing really major, so this couldn't even be turned into an article for the work itself. § FreeRangeFrog 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added several citations and other references. I really think this article should be kept as it is about an interesting and important historical subject. By the same tokens you cite, there are many more such significant journals and diaries in Wikipedia that should, according to your criteria, be deleted (look through the List of diarists). I still cannot comprehend why you should want to delete this article: looking at other AfD this subject really stands out among them. It's not as if it were a fly-by-night music band... I rest my case and hope the closing admin has some vision... Nick Michael (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's stick to discussing the notability of this article, other articles and whether or not they should be deleted is a discussion for another place.--RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Added additional source. The topic has been the subject of scholarly study with subsequent coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. In-depth coverage in a scholarly book and a BBC documentary adds a lot of weight to the notability. Notable historian Amanda Vickery says the subject is "unusual amongst diarists.." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that having been featured on a BBC documentary gets this from simply existing to past WP:GNG. Reversing !vote. I will note however that I think the diary itself is more notable from a historical perspective than the person. In response to, I don't "want" to delete anything. AfD is about finding reasons to keep information, not delete it. That is true for the entire Wikipedia deletion process. § FreeRangeFrog 19:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry Frog, I should have been editing WP long enough not to get emotional about such things, but I have usually limited my relatively few (but hopefully high quality) contributions to scholarly and encylcopaedic subjects, and this one seems to me to fit the ticket perfectly. I suppose you and RadioFan are rather like necessary macrophages, going around tidying things and cleaning up. Long life to you then... Nick Michael (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't sweat it :) My point really was that this was not historically significant, something that has now been disproved. I mean, between the latest 'huh-huh-yeah' single from a rapper and this, I'll go with this any day. But the notability guidelines have to be met either way. And I understand sometimes we do get emotional about things. Bottom line is, this gets rescued from AfD and the encyclopedia is all the better for it! § FreeRangeFrog 22:25, 2 December 2012 (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.