Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Henry Croxall


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Henry Croxall

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominated for speedy a few days ago but was declined, so I'm bringing it here. This is a fairly published author - but only a few medical books were published it seems. Citations given were for a Google Books scan of one of his works, as well as a listing. I'm not clear on publications on this one, and I'm bringing it here because I think there may be some controversy about this.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the author and I can't find other sources for TH Croxall that I can point to on the Internet. I've added an article about his translation of Johannes Climacus and his assessment of the book. I believe that Croxall is significant because he worked to bring Kierkegaard's writing to Christians. Many references used in your article about Soren Kierkegaard leave 1921-1959 completely out except for Heidegger and Sartre. Let's have more Swensen, Lowrie, and Croxall. User talk:11614soup 8:02, 25 July 2010 (CST)
 * Keep, though modestly so. The article is not so good--it's written like an essay, and its references are confused and confusing. I made a few minor edits and added a citation. There seems to be plenty of mention of Croxall's translation of some of K's works, and his Glimpses and Impressions is quite often referred to, though he doesn't get cited and discussed very often--typical for a translator, I imagine. So, I'm going to say keep, because I think that a. more can be found and b. the number of references to his work (even though the ones I looked at lack substantial discussion) indicate notability. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone has access to a bigger database than does my employer, they could pull up this citation, which suggests (from a Google Scholar search) that Croxall's work may have been relatively unique (well, in the sense of rare) for his time. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment Several other articles had material added to them recently by an IP editor using Jens Staubrand's recent Kierkegaard Bibliography (ISBN 978 87 92510 05 1) which would perhaps assist in extending and referencing this article on Croxall and his works. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Not the world's clearest article but that's not an AfD call. Croxall does seem to be significant in English-speaking reception of Kierkegaard. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep significant as an author and editor. Some of his books about Kierkegaard are in more than two hundred libraries,  a/c Worldcat     DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (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.