Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Webb (historian) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Secret account 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

James Webb (historian)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BIO article, no reliable secondary sources found to meet notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * keep - ""By focusing on functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism, Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas." - referenced. Other references are also readily available, if one only looks. Zambelo ; talk 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Webb in a relatively obscure book by an unknown (and now defunct) publisher does not equal Notability, even under the very flexible rules at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - and add better sourcing inline - one of the external links is a pretty meaty Fortean Times piece that should help considerably. Artw (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a New York Review of Books article about him here, though the bulk of it appears paywalled. Artw (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Even with the sources mentioned above by Artw, there is a still insufficient coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. We need A LOT more meat than this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He's pretty widely cited in books on Gurdijeff. It really does seem like in the 70s and 80s at least he was THE Gurdjieff guy. That doesn't help us much in terms of finding articles online of course. Artw (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with Dominus. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree also with Dominus, I don't believe there are sufficient citations for the above guidelines. st170etalk 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 11:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be notable for the Gurdjieff work, and was notable enough for Trinity College to establish the "James Webb Prize for the History of Ideas". As for sources, his entire life was pre-internet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. Nonetheless, we need sources to demonstrate notability. "Seems" doesn't cut it... --Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So if I personally say "there is notability", then there is notability, and if I personally say "seems to be" then there is not! :) Let me reword then! The Gurdjieff work demonstrates to me notability: it is still in print, and has been cited in many other sources . The other parts of his life are also notable because other sources indicate that his life and his work were strongly inter-related. Another of his books, The Occult Underground, also has plenty of citations . And the fact that a prize was established by a notable college in his memory demonstrates that his notability and stature at the time of his death was recognized as being significant by academics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what I meant. "Seem" is not just the word you used, it is the only word you could use in the absence of sources. And did you actually look at the results of the Google searches that you linked to? A lot of those are just in-passing mentions and then you get a huge amount of "hits" that, when you search in the books themselves, don't mention either James Web or Gurdjieff (no clue why GBooks does that, but nonetheless there it is). In fact, I did not see any reference that was the in-depth kind of coverage that we would need to establish notability. So instead of linking to a search result, you could perhaps tell us which one of those are useful to build an article upon? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added seven new references to the article, including 3 that express how important his work on Gurdjieff was and two for the James Webb prize. There are now enough reliable secondary sources and inline citations in the article to meet the notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I don't understand why you are saying that the google books search doesn't mention either James Web or Gurdjieff - the search comes up with dozens of books [] and Webb or his book is discussed in depth in many of them (to look at the content of individual books, go to them, then take out "Gurdjieff" and "James" from the search terms and just seach for "Webb"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 21 October 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.