Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Samuel

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. (aeropagitica) 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raphael Samuel

Not notable, as a stub or otherwise--check hits—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) .

• Speedy Keep. Author of over a dozen scholarly books on solid presses, and co-founder of academic journal. Influential enough to have had academic research center named after him! LotLE×talk 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the article can be modified so that it includes content that is notable, I will change my vote to "keep". -Kmaguir1 01:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not seeing notability. There are tons of people who have 13 books out no one's every heard of who do not belong on wikipedia, and tons of people who started an academic journal who are not on here.-Kmaguir1 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue they do belong on Wikipedia if they've been published so extensively. Obviously both they, and their books, need to be included because it's quite possible someone might actually be researching ther work. I've never heard of Nonterminating Numerical Decimals by Albert Wier (fictional) but someone might need to research it and it needs to be included here.-Shazbot85^Talk 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, and thus notability should be strictly construed. A person of note to a specialist in a field is not necessarily notable, unless there has been a popular strain in that field. Again, I know of oodles of published, intelligent authors who are not on Wikipedia, and do not belong. Weed out the ones who are on here just because they have a fan club. That's where I'm coming from. Since the material has been added, it's possibility it's only a weak delete, but again, a Marxist historian who published 13 books no one read? Would that make it into an ordinary encyclopedia? I think not. -Kmaguir1 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

...and even if it were. Well, Samuel doesn't get an independent entry in my 2004 EB (admittedly not the paper edition, but I think the content is the same); but he is referenced in the "Western theatre" entry. I wonder if Kmaguir1 will next AfD today's frontpage article on Sequence alignment, which likewise appeals to specialists, with little-to-no popular discussion of the topic. LotLE×talk 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the spectrum of notability has anything to do with the fact he is a person of note and worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia. For instance State Route 385 (Tennessee) is included on Wikipedia. No one outside of the Memphis/Collierville/Millington area really knows about Paul Barret Parkway. The spectrum of notability does not come into play there, I fail to see how it applies here. -Shazbot85^Talk 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would vote to delete State Route 385 even as I modified it--and we all know how much you hate driving on it, Shazbot. I would vote to delete it because it's nn. However, there are other state routes on here, so you want to be consistent. "References" are not enough to determine notability--it has to be notable. And you have to quantify this. About one million people in Memphis, plus another one million who used to live in Memphis, could tell you what State Route 385 or Nonconnah or Bill Morris or Paul Barrett was. I don't think two million people in the entire world could tell me who Raphael Samuel was.-Kmaguir1 00:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Spectrum of notability doesn't dimish that is it notable. -Shazbot85^Talk 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He's notable. He's been published. -Shazbot85^Talk 06:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination and vote to delete lack merit.--Anthony Krupp 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator's notion of notability is becoming notorious. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, clearly meets notability criteria thanks to LotLE's expansion. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep meetgs all criteria. Kudos to LotLE Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep please it looks like bad faith nomination to me Yuckfoo 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This person is notable. So, It stands WP:Notability, and he was book publisher. Daniel's page ☎ 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Raphael Samuel had a profound effect on the historical profession in Britain and elsewhere. His published work is notable but does not reflect his influence on generations of students and historians. He has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography and a portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. A entry should stay but not this one as it fails to capture Samuel's importance to the New Social History of the 1960s, to the project of 'history from below' and later to his writings on culture and memory. It is also inaccurate in places. Peter Claus (Raphael Samuel History Centre, University of East London). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.163.45 (talk • contribs).

If you know more about him, as suggested, fleshing out the biography would be great. I just worked it up from a short stub myself, but I'm sure it could be enhanced further. In particular, if you can provide citations, it would be good to include facts about Dictionary of National Biography and National Portrait Gallery. Or generally, any further elaboration (with proper citation) about his effect on historiography. LotLE×talk 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep large amount of published work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasons enumerated above. --Myles Long 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No one except the nominator appears to believe the subject of this article is non-notable. Suggest a speedy keep at this point. RFerreira 06:49, 29 August 2006 (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.