Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Walter Josland

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Walter Josland

The page fails WP:GOOGLE. I initially put it up for CSD, but quickly retracted it, because I wanted opinions from other people. --Nishkid64 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Well-written, though. Note: page creator removed AfD notice. Powers ^T 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The papers constitute an assertion of notability, and I no longer have an opinion on the actual notability. Powers ^T 13:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• As Josland's scientific work was published in the 1950s, the Google test isn't very useful. 'Josland & Salmonella' and various other possibilities come up with more hits, including a page with war poetry (http://www.iwvpa.net/joslandsw/index.php). Chief Bacteriologist at the National Health Institute, Department of Health, Wellington appears to be a claim of notability; perhaps NZ editors can assess how valid. Medline comes up with six papers on NZ Salmonella spp for SW Josland in 1950s, and I've also found multiple distinct veterinary papers on Google that aren't in the Medline listing. Google Ingenta records suggest some evidence of citation, though I don't have access to Ingenta to check. I'd tentatively suggest keep to avoid bias against older research; certainly the author should be given rather more time to come up with notability claims and refs. Espresso Addict 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Older page version has a partial paper listing, though it seems to exclude all the papers I found above. Espresso Addict 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Possible claim of notability, I suppose. It depends on how high up "Chief Bacteriologist" is, but on the surface of this article, I don't see it. If he indeed published a significant number of papers, I'm willing to revise my vote when they're added to the article. Powers ^T 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added back the papers listed in an earlier version plus the ones I found in Medline search for discussion purposes. Espresso Addict 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Now on the talk page as the page creator has deleted them from the article. Espresso Addict 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, his papers make him sufficiently notable.-gadfium 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC). Now a full keep, on reflection and with improvements to the article.-gadfium 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He doesn't look all that exciting but the list of publications is respectable. BTLizard 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a wide variety of activity that adds up to notability Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Clearly passes the professor test in WP:BIO, very well published and with the positions he's held rather well known. Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 3 September 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.