Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. C. Pollard


 * 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. With DGG being uncertain, and three others (including NW) ivoting delete, I find consensus for delete. However, if the author wishes, a copy of the deleted article could be made available.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

W. C. Pollard

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not seem to meet notability criteria, specifically WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. There are a few sources to interviews with local papers and such; I don't think that is significant enough. NW ( Talk ) 16:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My entries here may be in several takes, as my computer keeps going down today. First, let me say that I know Mr. Pollard and wrote the article in question after writing a story about him for the Lawrence, KS, newspaper. Pollard's name appears in many Wikipedia articles on Kansas Civil War history. Footnotes in those articles reference his PhD dissertation, articles he wrote and correspondence with individuals. Also, he told me he wrote a number of articles about central Florida lakes, such as Lakes Jackson, Verona, Olivia, Pabor, Trout, Cracker Lake, Crystal Lake, etc. Please look at the footnotes from Wikipedia articles about Forts Aubrey, McKean, etc. Jroony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroony (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. One small-press book, two self-published books, and a local newspaper interview don't add up to WP:GNG for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot see how notability is achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Uncertain I'm thinking of proposing a new  guideline, that we extend very generously inclusive treatment to articles on any book, publication, or website, or the authors of any book, that will clearly be helpful to people writing Wikipedia articles. the purpose of this is so that users can better judge the reliability of sources,. In the case of authors, by assessing the degree to which they are aRS in their subject and their likely biases. I know perfectly well that it is not current practice. It could, however, be justified even under current policy without using IAR: First,  the purpose of Wikipedia is not to judge the notability of subjects, but to be a useful encyclopedia.   Whatever helps the reader is appropriate content. Second, WP:V is a basic policy, one of the 5 pillars, and supersedes almost all other considerations;  WP:N is just a guideline. To see whether WP:V is satisfied, editors as well as users need a way of judging the sources. If this principal were accepted, the article would be justifiable. From such an article, if properly rewritten to concentrate on his books, the reader would learn that 1 of them (A career of defiance : the life of Ian Smith) is self  published, 1 (A short history of the Methodist movement a self-published collection of his articles in a Methodist Church journal, and the third (Dark Friday : the story of Quantrill's Lawrence raid) published by a significant   local publisher that is not a vanity published, & found in about 85 US libraries,    DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the 1st Wikipedia article I have written. I have been writing free-lance for 19 years and never knew I would create such a controversy with this article. I will add info on the books Pollard wrote in his article. I hope that ends this controversy.Jroony (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Jroony
 * 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.