Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Henderson Kelly


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

William Henderson Kelly

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Another contested prod without improvement. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Arizona. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Only thing I can find is this very passing coverage. Not many citations of any of his works. Keep I'm convinced by the sources added by David Eppstein. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) ; edited 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep – True the article needs de-stubbing improvements. But the Tombstone Epitaph editorship and contributions to Arizona anthropology are noteworthy enough to endow him with WP-Notability. Moreover, this is a very new article from a very new Wikipedia editor. A deletion is not the best way to encourage editor participation. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)19:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which one? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete . I'm not seeing GNG or the supposed WP:NACADEMIC pass. I'd be happy to change my mind if anyone can find evidence of either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps these results will help. Let's supply our new WP editor with resources and guidance rather then a 'slap-down-your-very-first-article' got deleted. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, a keep it is. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I found and added to the article five published reviews of three books (one edited). I think it's borderline but enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * does that guideline apply to nonfiction writers? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it? There is nothing in it restricting it to fiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Upgrading my opinion to keep after finding significant coverage of his newspaper and academic work in published articles by Brinegar and McGuire. I think those two sources bring WP:GNG into play as well as WP:AUTHOR. (I also added another published source by Elliott, Wild, and Dinges, but I don't think it has enough depth of coverage of Kelly to count for much.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It applies even to journalists! The important thing is the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work", whatever that work happens to be. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Having a collection of papers kept by the Arizona State Museum and University of Arizona is usually a signifier of notability, although not automatic.  But I found the same five reviews of books that  did, and believe the WP:NAUTHOR case.  I'm not seeing the citations I'd look for with WP:NPROF, but this is not unusual in a "book field". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on the reviews: we often use "multiple reviews of multiple books" as a rule of thumb for WP:NAUTHOR, but what that is supposed to be getting at is "multiple notable works" (so better to have an author article than several stubs on books) or, in the actual words of WP:NAUTHOR, either regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors or created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But these reviews actually show the contrary: for the one book that has three reviews, two of them criticize it for being unuseful - which does rather explain the low citation counts. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Significant or well-known are not the same as useful. Which is to say that, for me at least, the depth of coverage of a review is relevant, but whether it concludes with a positive or negative verdict is not. All three of these reviews have significant depth of coverage. If you're looking for other evidence of whether the book became significant or well-known, you might also observe that it has triple-digit citations on Google Scholar, high for this sort of topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not the negative verdict that is the concern, it's the implication that this isn't really a significant body of work. But I don't think we need to show a standard author/prof pass here anyway, given the newspaper stuff you found. I'm confident there would be more coverage in historical newspapers as well. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the reviews and especially due to coverage of Kelly in articles by Brinegar and McGuire. -- Mvqr (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources added to article.  // Timothy :: talk  06:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another contested prod without improvement. Editors really should understand what "uncontroversial" means. By rights, no article that has been prodded should even have a chance of being kept if taken to AfD. Prodding is not a way to get around taking a possibly notable article to AfD, which is what some editors seem to see it as. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (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.