Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Wilmshurst


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Walter Leslie Wilmshurst

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No indication that this author is notable. Does not pass requirements set out at WP:AUTHOR. Google scholar has only 6 hits NOMINAION WITHDRAWN per discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considering the subject matter and era involved I wouldn't necessarily expect to find much in Google Scholar. Plenty more sources can be found by using initials rather than full given names: . The books found include this one, which mentions the subject on 39 pages, and this biography, which, although probably written by a relative, is from a well-established publisher in its field. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment... Considering the subject matter and era? Yes, let's... This was actually a time when there were a lot of scholars writing on the subject of Freemasonry. Compare Wilmshurst with with contemporaties such as AG Mackey or Albert Pike.  Filter out the hits to the authors' own works, and we better see who is really notable and who isn't. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done as you suggested and checked Google scholar hits filtering out these authors' own works. "WL Wilmshurst" with "Freemasonry" gets 39 hits and AG Mackey gets 63 hits for an equivalent search. That doesn't look like an enormous difference to me. Pike gets a lot more, so does that mean that Mackey is not notable because he gets less Google Scholar hits than someone who is more notable? Anyway, notability is measured neither by the number of search hits nor by comparison with other subjects but by the content and quality of the sources available. Maybe you could concentrate on explaining why the Lomas book that I linked above, along with these 448 further books, are not enough to confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would discount Lomas because his reputation for scholarship is very poor. As for the the google books search... I have to admit that this does indicate more notability than it origially appeared when I nominated.  Thank you for pointing me to it.  This moves me from saying that "Wilmshurst is not notable" to "The article does not properly establish that he is notable", which is a very different issue. I withdraw the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 21 February 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.