Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey E. Barlough


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Joyous! Noise! 21:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey E. Barlough

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP of a minor-league author whose main following seems to be on GoodReads. May be notable for his academic work; let's discuss. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors,  and Science. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Slightly weak keep. The WP:NAUTHOR case actually looks reasonable here for the science fiction work.  Without looking very hard, I found several reviews of his books over a long period on Publishers Weekly  and Kirkus Reviews .  Note that the Kirkus ones are not in (predate?) their pay-for-play "indie" program.  I expect more reliable source reviews may exist for the older works.  The WP:NPROF case from citations is also a possible pass -- he has a several highly cited papers as first or last author (in a field where that matters), in a medium citation field.  The combination of the two weak keep cases starts to look stronger. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I haven't looked very deeply, but to add to what Ross Woodroofe said above, he's one of the authors on an updated version of an apparently widely used textbook, so notability seems likely enough that this is a "weak keep" instead of just a comment. -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, it appears Barlough may meet Wikipedia's academic notability guidelines with a number of articles by him in various journals plus him being the consulting editor for the UC Davis Book of Dogs: The Complete Medical Reference Guide for Dogs and Puppies. And Barlough definitely meets our WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines. There are 9 reviews of the author's works on Publishers Weekly, a couple of reviews in Kirkus, multiple reviews in Booklist and School Library Journal (accessible through the Wikipedia library), reviews in Asimov's Science Fiction and Black Gate and other genre magazines, multiple listings of this author's books on the annual Locus Magazine recommended reading list along with reviews in the magazine, and an entry for the author in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. And while the following action by me doesn't count toward proving notability, after learning about this author's Western Lights series I've added his books to my to-be-read list b/c they sound amazing!--SouthernNights (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews listed above. WP:PROF for his work in veterinary medicine also looks plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: And yet this article still does not show SIGCOV. People who handwave sources in an AfD w/o making any effort to add them to the article should have their input ignored by the closer. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, the notability of a subject is independent of what condition the article itself is in. And it's not handwaving to do a search for reliable sources before offering an opinion on whether or not a subject is notable. As a final note, I usually do improve articles during AfD discussions but haven't had a chance to do so here. But even if no one adds a single one of the citations above to the article, that doesn't matter at all to determining if a subject is notable. And in this case Jeffrey E. Barlough does indeed meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2023 (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.