Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Carr (historian)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Carr (historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doubt about notability. Declined as AfC and later without further discussion published. The Banner talk 13:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS citations to his works tiny. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as nothing at all for notability and substance. SwisterTwister   talk  23:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added six published reviews (of two of his books) to the article. I think that may be enough for WP:AUTHOR, a lower bar than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that he does not pass WP:PROF; however, his books have attracted reviews and his research has lead to frequent news reports, and I believe that he meets the general notability guidelines. I added some references.  By the way, any editor may move a draft to mainspace if he or she feels that it is ready, and the draft in question was improved by other editors between the decline and the move, so lack of discussion should not be a consideration here, only the notability issue.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added evidence of recent notability to article. Enough public activity to keep.Climate2000 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are just of the type "Mr. Carr is saying something" with a reference to the job he is in. The work about the Veteran Tories is in fact his (published) PhD. It is nice that he is called a lecturer, but that is in fact just a little bit more than teacher, not even close to being a professor, as this article seems to suggest. The Banner talk 17:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the English system, "lecturer" is roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in the US system: a junior-level position that combines both research and teaching. It is not the same as the teaching-only US meaning of "lecturer". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, in doubt now. But can somebody fix this unsourced coat rack? In 2012 he authored the report Credit Where Credit's Due for the think tank Localis, with a foreword by Jesse Norman. As part of his ongoing work on One Nation politics, he has given two public lectures - the first alongside John Denham (politician), and the second an academic discussion of the historic origins of the concept. In 2014 he published a series of essays on localism for the Fabian Society with the public affairs specialist Dominic Rustecki, with a foreword by Hilary Benn.[citation needed] The Banner talk 21:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Banner, I did what I could with that, removing name dropping, etc. But, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How to destroy a positive attitude to improving the article... The Banner talk</i> 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, article reflects, thanks to references to reviews added by . Coolabahapple (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR with book reviews brought by .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Although Anne Delong seems to be more preoccupied with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, sometimes it is necessary to improve an article to prove the notability. Plain advertising or coat rack just prove the contrary of notability. But thanks to the work of others, I give the article the benefit of the doubt and withdraw the nomination. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:02, 13 August 2016 (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.