Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. C. Berwick Sayers


 * 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 speedy keep; plenty of good sources found. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

W. C. Berwick Sayers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The items of substantial coverage on this librarian consist of one obituary in an appropriate specialist journal. I don't believe we can make a case for WP:GNG here. My sympathies are toward keeping this kind of material (there's certainly no promotion involved) but unless someone can find some additional coverage, I don't think we have a basis of encyclopedic notability here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that took off. I was looking for further obits, seems that digging for contemporary reviews would have been more productive. Thanks guys, that's excellent sourcing. I'll withdraw. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There may be a case that he passes WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the "Further reading" section cites D.J. Foskett and B.I. Palmer, eds., The Sayers Memorial Volume, London: Library Association, 1961.; and WP:NACADEMIC (which supersedes GNG) notes The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses.. Heading the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals arguably satisfies NACADEMIC C6 as well. It is also fairly easy to find reviews and analysis of his work, making a case for WP:NAUTHOR. Spicy (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the obit the nom mentions, the 'Further Reading' section already listed a memorial volume in honor of Sayers. While this volume is an offline source, p. 246 pf the obit in questions says this about its content: "The first three chapters, by J.D. Stewart, Eileen Colwell and S.P.L. Filon, are about Sayers". Pp 246-247 of the obit list several other items in the "Biographical and critical" writings about Sayers section. I found an online publicly available version of one of these items, a 1961 article in 'Annals of Library Science' by Ranganathan, S.R. Sayers and Donker Duyvis, which I have also added tp the Further Reading section. Overall, certainly enough here already to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just added ten reviews of five books to the article. So in addition to the pass of WP:GNG from the published obituary and memorial volume (which was inexplicably omitted from the nomination statement) he also passes WP:AUTHOR and likely (through presidency of the Library Association) WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep OK, I'm convinced that he passes WP:AUTHOR. The Festschrift counts toward WP:PROF and the Library Association presidency counts toward WP:PROF. I think that's more than enough. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2020 (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.