Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. McLaughlin


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

John C. McLaughlin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two pro-forma obituaries do not sufficient notability make, I'm sorry to say. No indication of any further coverage, or anything touching WP:NPROF for his professional life. Wikipedia is not the right place for this memorial. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added 12 reliably-published, in-depth, and independent reviews of three of his books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't quite see how it does, actually. Which point are you aiming at - 3? The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Reviews exist, but the majority of them seem to be meh to middling; and I wouldn't agree that they demonstrate a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". One would expect that conclusion to be explicitly drawn somewhere (e.g., an in-depth obituary would have been the place). - To put it another way, a dozen reviews which do not add up to a an assessment of the work as significant, do not satisfy WP:AUTHOR. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4(c) The person's works have won significant critical attention. It's not important to me whether the reviewers liked the work, only that the reviews are in-depth. Alternatively, if you like, you can view this as coverage towards WP:GNG: we now have (including the two obituaries) 14 non-trivial independently and reliably published sources with in-depth coverage of the subject and his works, not just two. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, 4(c) would work better. I'm not set up to fight too much against inclusion of academics in any case :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe the sources recently added by David Eppstein demonstrate that McLaughlin qualifies for notability as per WP:AUTHOR 4(c). Krakkos (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note for the record that Krakkos is the article's creator. –David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep. More than enough reviews to qualify. Haukur (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY after work by . Bearian (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2019 (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.