Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Durusau

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete‎. There is clear consensus that the individual being discussed here is not notable. There is some support for the creation of an article about his most notable book. If someone wishes to create such an article, and wants the content here as a reference, I will gladly provide a userspace copy - alternatively, if a mainspace article about the book is created, we could consider redirecting and undeleting history. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Patrick Durusau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a deletion discussion about a person, and yet so far the discussion has not come to a consensus about this person, and has instead determined that a book they wrote - which does not currently have an article - is notable (noting here that the arguments for keeping that have been presented are all about the book, and do not establish notability for the author). The AfD closer cannot be responsible for implementing such a reframing, and it isn't reasonable to move what is patently a biography to a title about a book without reframing. As such, this currently looks like a "delete" outcome - I'm relisting for one more week in the hope that someone will do something to avoid such a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was not considering notability from the perspective of WP:NBOOK but if anything WP:AUTHOR, the BLPs consensus is leaning if anything towards a Keep if I were to look at it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further updating my !vote to a "Weak delete". Iljhgtn (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I said in my !vote, the book reviews are enough to establish notability under WP:NBOOK or under WP:NAUTHOR (specifically criteria 3, which says that an individual who created a significant and notable work can themselves be considered notable). With authors who have written a single notable book, it's obviously a common outcome to prefer having an article about the book rather than about the author, since having both is typically redundant. But the sources that establish WP:NBOOK notability here also establish WP:NAUTHOR notability, and as the nominator here said themselves, there is value to retaining the article history. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this article on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR, and a discussion can be had outside of AfD about whether or not to reframe it to be about the book. MCE89 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the article lacks independent sources pointing to the notability of the scholar, and as written the article is not a good foundation to an article about the book itself. The author is an expert in the sorts of fields (open-document standards) that lead to high support on Wikipedia fora, but the article has still not had added to it either (a) the types of mainstream press citations of authority that would allow a GNG keep or (b) the larger scholarly concensus (tenure, awards, high citation indices, reviews for multiple publications) that would make for a keep. I won't object if someone wants to take the article and try to make a case for the book. And I don't feel strongly either way, but given the multiple relists and the need for non-involved comments from people who regularly review WP:PROF, this (general inclusionist) suggests delete. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Durusau&oldid=1286908850"