Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry C. Dethloff

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. It would be nice if the sources produced below were to wander their way into the article. Neil (►) 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry C. Dethloff

Henry C. Dethloff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable academic. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). A lot of academics write books, but this one doesn't seem to be a significant expert or well known. waffle iron talk 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --TTalk to me 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn 02:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • He qualifies as an author then if not as an academic.. "An academic who has published a book or books of general interest, a widely used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements. Similarly, an academic involved in significant current events is likely to be notable as a person under the general WP:BIO guidelines."
  • Keep per Billy Hathorn. The article isn't well written but the subject is at least as notable as the bulk of academics on wikipedia Bigdaddy1981 03:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did searches for this academic's book titles. Essentially, nobody on the Internet talks about any of his books. His impact seems to have been negligible. Quatloo 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I doubt that he's a darling of the blogosphere, but I found plenty of reviews of his work on JSTOR: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (to list a few) Zagalejo 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not sure whether he qualifies as an academic or as a writer; his subject area is restricted to Texas history and the titles sound popular. I'll look at the reviews.
I note that the sources for the books are given as amazon and alibris, and so on--which are well know at AfD for not being reliable for notability,m because they will list anything. Everything else listed is from his university. (The reviews Zagalejo found will be better sources). I hope that Billy's sources for topics I am less able to judge are better than that--this is the first time he's ventured on territory I do know. This confirms my previous feeling that the sources used in the series of Texas and Louisiana notables are altogether inadequate, without a serious effort at finding reliable secondary sources. Fortunately for this particular article, the subject's notability is well established by the basic facts of his life. DGG 01:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I share DGG's concerns regarding the sources for Billy Hathorn's articles here in general, I also agree with DGG that in this particular case, the subject does appear to be legitimately notable per the reviews found by Zagalejo. Mwelch 06:45, 28 May 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.