Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Guyatt


 * 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. Notable under WP:AUTHOR, as shown by the reviews as suitable independent secondary sources. The argument that the sources have to be about the person's incidental biography rather than their work has not b, nor should it--people are notable because of what they do, which is shown by the sources about it. (A few people--royalty and society figures) may be written about for merely existing, but they are the exception.  DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Guyatt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article does not make a case for the person's notability. The sources all focus on the book the subject wrote, rather than the subject itself. There is nothing to imply that the author is notability because of the book. A Google search doesn't seem to throw up any thrid party souces that profile the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Since this has been relisted, I will present my rationale more clearly. The author clearly doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:BIO in that the person has not been the subject of multiple secondary sources.  Under the criteria for academics (WP:ACADEMIC), I believe the subject still fails to meet the criteria, since there is no evidence presented in the biography nor is it evident from a Google search that the person is distinguished within their field, or indeed has had any significant influence within their field i.e. the subject appears to be a journeyman scholar.  The only notable aspect of his career is the book Have a Nice Doomsday, which has received some coverage in the mainstream media, but mainstream coverage is not indicative of influence within a field, since mainstream sources are prone to publicising research by fringe academics; in fact most of the attention the book has received has come from outside academia.  The mainstream coverage of the book could be evidence for criterion 7, which stipulates The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. However, the guidance for criterion 7 stipulates Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. I am not sure a single book that has received mainstream attention satisfies this, and again there is little evidence that the subject is "widely regarded" as an "expert" within academia on the topic. This has all the hallmarks of an academic authoring a fringe piece on a provocative topic, and there is no evidence of the subject being notable in any form. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yunshui 雲水 09:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG:, , . Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Substantial multiple coverage of Have a Nice Doomsday is enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.  In addition, his book Providence and the Invention of the United States has also received substantial reviews as well as substantial discussion and citation in other works . --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The Guardian article referenced in the article and the rest count as significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, any of his books that get ample coverage, could have their own individual articles as well.   D r e a m Focus  00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis does the subject meet WP:GNG? All the secondary coverage is of the book, not of the subject himself. Also, WP:AUTHOR only confers notability on authors of "significant" or "well known" works, and there is no indication they are "well known".  They were basically reviewed when they were published and that was it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to actually read the coverage.
 * These alarming statistics come from Have a Nice Doomsday, a jaunty report by Nicholas Guyatt from the front line of wacky religious fervour. Guyatt, a Briton who has lived and studied in the US, meets the preachers and authors who spend their time mapping the correlation between Iranian nuclear ambitions and verses in the Book of Ezekiel.


 * Guyatt tries to conceal the wrinkle all of this puts in his secular nose, not always successfully. He isn't a polemicist, but he doesn't leave much doubt, for example, about his scorn for America's pro-Israel foreign policy. Israel is important to Bible-belt fundamentalists because it is where the Final Battle happens. The worse things get in Jerusalem, the nearer we are to Armageddon (which is, if you are a righteous believer, a good thing). As Guyatt points out, Christianity has had apocalyptic spasms throughout its history. But the last time it was so fixated on the Antichrist and his designs on the Holy Land was around the 12th century. Prophetic literalism is Denaissance theology. etc. etc.
 * Yes, they talk about him.  D r e a m Focus  01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That clearly isn't about him, it's about the content of his book and the research he undertook for it. There is nothing there that doesn't come from his book; it's not as if they have profiled him as background to the book. Betty Logan (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Reliable Sources, This articel will however require expansion and a rewrite. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As Dreamfocus and Arxiloxos point out, numerous sources establish notability under WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The multiple reviews from reputable publications of Guyatt's work satisfy WP:AUTHOR (4c). His Have a Nice Doomsday has received coverage at "'Have a Nice Doomsday' Witty, Informative" from The Capital Times, "Is This the Way That the World Ends?" from St. Petersburg Times, Review from Library Journal, and "Author explores apocalyptic Christian culture" from Reuters. "Another American Century? The United States and the World After 2000" from Political Science Quarterly. His Providence and the Invention of the United States has received reviews from The Historian, History, Journal of the Early Republic, Journal of American Culture, The American Historical Review, Canadian Journal of History, and The Journal of American History. Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2011 (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.