Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Buckley


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Buckley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think I should have been harsh and tag it with a CSD or PROD, so I'm going to list it here. This BLP is unsourced, and is it notable?  The Mi ke  •Wassup doc?  07:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You tell us. You're supposed to have done the research to find out before nominating something for deletion on the grounds of notability.  See Project:Guide to deletion and Project:Deletion policy.  What did you do to determine notability?  Where did you look for sources?  What did you find?  Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as a question, but rather as more of a statement. I meant to say that this person is Not notable, as far as my google searching skills go.  The Mi ke  •Wassup doc?  12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Advice given to newbies is don't edit an article without first having found out something about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Msrasnw (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. He appears notable under WP:BK criteria, in that his work is cited and reviewed in other publications, per a Google search. For example, "'Standing Ground' continues Buckley's impressive contributions to the field..." http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/1/225.full.pdf; "Thomas Buckley, an accomplished anthropologist who has done excellent work on the Yuroks of northern California..." | Book Review | Oregon Historical Quarterly, 109.2; "Blood Magic offers a lot of Information in a scholarly presentation..." (mixed review), http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0091-2182/PII009121829090077I.pdf, and so on. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have cited WP:AUTHOR, which applies similar criteria to the author of a book which has made a distinct contribution, recognized by reviews. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Msrasnw (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:55, 9 January 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.