Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray (literary scholar)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Gray (literary scholar)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for the following reasons

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-17948 - just a directory so it's primary.

2. The Writer's Directory, vol. 31, part 6 (London: St. James Press, 2013), p. 1220. - Routine writers directory. Therefore, it's primary.

3. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/richard-gray-FBA/ - He works at The British Academy so it's not independent and it's primary.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC because he doesn't hold a named chair and The British Academy is not as prestigious as National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics. Plus, WP:Pokémon test may apply here. Signal Crayfish (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, WP:SK3, stunningly bad and highly erroneous nomination statement. (1) ANYBIO is the wrong notability criterion; he should be evaluated by WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. (2) I see no evidence that "He works at The British Academy". The link given contradicts that, stating his current post as emeritus professor at the University of Essex. (3) FBA is a clear pass of WP:PROF. The NAS and RS are for scientists; the BA is the corresponding institution to the RS for literary scholars, among others. (4) the nominator is very confused over whether coverage being "routine" makes it "primary" (no). And there is nothing excepting routine coverage in GNG. (5) A cursory search of JSTOR finds many reviews of his books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at the post about this on Signal Crayfish’s talk page? I am not sure they really understand notability and may have a battleground mentality. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:Pokémon test is not a serious argument for deletion. Whether the subject of this article is less "notable" than "an average Pokémon" is entirely subjective and has no factual basis. It's just a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think I've ever seen someone invoke that argument in multiple AfDs before. This is bad practice. Toughpigs (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. James500 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Weak because the article as it stands certainly justifies the stub tag that was placed on it very recently. It needs some serious work to expand it into something more informative. Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (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.