Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheldon Goldfarb


 * 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   delete.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Goldfarb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author. Works consist of 1 edition of a minor novel by Thackeray, which was his doctoral thesis and republished as part of a collected edition,,  a routine bibliography of Thackeray,  and 1 mystery novel, a book in only 10 libraries. No academic positions. This is not enough to make him an expert according to WP:PRO or WP:Author.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)     DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to be only two citations to the work of this Thackeray scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. His children's mystery novel was shortlisted for an Arthur Ellis Award (juvenile category)  but didn't win, and the scholarly books have had no impact in terms of citations or library holdings. Not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. There are local write-ups on him the UBC student newspaper  and  British Columbia Jewish Independent . Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dreadful article - ill-informed, excruciatingly badly written and completely non-notable! WoodstockEarth (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did find some mentions of him in various books on Victorian era stuff. He's name dropped quite a bit, enough to where I'd say that something he wrote would be usable as a reliable source. But does that make him notable? I don't know, to be honest. I did dig up some sources for him. I would also say that the Grumpy Old Bookman blog review might be one of the very rare times when a blog source might be usable as a RS for a book review. I don't know that it's savable, but I did add some stuff to the article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * all academics give thanks to everyone they've ever met at any occasion. Authors do similarly, and I suppose other professions also. This means nothing. It's why we require significant references. I take a very broad and flexible view of what counts as significant, but the absolute opposite of significant is "mention"  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. Being an independent scholar, although unusual, does not preclude academic notability, but in this case the citation record does not support WP:PROF#C1, most of the other WP:PROF criteria assume a professional academic career, and we don't have the in-depth coverage of him in independent reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (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.