Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Augustin Calahan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Peripitus has by far the best argument in all of this, that he probably meets the WP:BIO criteria about lasting importance (despite his low importance to any of us it seems.) Whether anyone will ever do the physical library searching remains to be seen. Grandmasterka 10:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Augustin Calahan

Harold Augustin Calahan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable writer which doesn't satisfy WP:NN. Only has 545 entries on google, most referring to other people [1] Only assertion to notability is writing a non notable book that is supposed to be a continuation to a famous book KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note that most of these hits contains nothing about the person, but are names for others. Also the person doesn't fit into any of the notability factors for WP:BIO --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that should tell you that there is something there, you just need to dig deeper and do more hard work. His obituary was in the New York Times archive and he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He is also listed in a paper biographical dictionary, and Google book search has 10 of his books scanned and indexed. Google news archive also lists him in several papers. It makes me happy to see a niche writer get the web presence he deserves. I will add more from his biography when I get more time, and see if I can contact his grandchildren for an image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Richard Arthur Norton ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless and until RAN finds his three good ones. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Searching on "Harold Augustin Calahan" in fact gives you 65 unique ghits, all for him (and he is not always referred to by all 3 names). He seems to have written a number of books on yachting, some of which have had recent Dover reprints, showing continued interest in his work. See this recent review, for instance. He used to write a prominent magazine column on yachting. I don't think he is exactly a household name, but he seems to have had some importance in the little world of mid-20th century American yachting. Brianyoumans 07:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for an author born in 1889 about such an obscure topic there are a lot of his books available. Books still being reviewed as of 2002 and he seems that have at least 8 books listed at Dartmouth library. I'm sure that some physical library searching will show he passes the WP:BIO part The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. from the brief search I've done - Peripitus (Talk) 10:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with no doubt from me. The book Back to Treasure Island is, as i understand, rather well known. Why is it actually so difficult to find something about him? It is quite probable that some will find more material about the author, so until then keep.Summer Song 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I own the book Back to Treasure Island. He has written a long introduction in which he defend the writing and says it is actually Stevenson's honour and not his own. I think Calahan should not be an unknown name for those who are interested in novels and discussions around them. It is probable that he is a somewhat obscure person, but it should clearly be noted who he is. I hope for some to come who knows more about him. I am myself astonished that it is that little to find on the internet, but probably there are some facts outside the internet. Summer Song 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable. The Dover reprints mentioned above clinch it for me. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - low priority, but notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, ghits are an incredibly bad measurement for 19th century topics. And the fact that some of his books are (or were) still in print after nearly a century clinches it for me. Easily as notable as many contemporary authors who will have thousands of ghits. Not (obviously) a very notable author, but easily notable enough. Xtifr tälk 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's one of those topics internet research still kinda sucks on. Ghits are a valuable guideline for notability, but hardly the last word. Ford MF 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and the other 542 hits mentioned by the nominator. Ronbo76 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Good sources, author of some intriguing works. Smee 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong keep. Someone took the time to find stuff written in books (remember those?) about Calahan...and even his WWI draft card. This makes this article exemplary already. Putting it still further over the top is the 1952 New York Times article, which explicitly states that "it's doubtful that he ever wrote a word that hasn't been read with interest" among sailors. --zenohockey 19:26, 20 March 2007 (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.