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. Tone 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Gary Boyd Roberts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 20:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I have searched the Googles (scholar, books, news), Proquest (Global Newsstream; The New York Times), and JSTOR. While Roberts has assembled and published various genealogies, and though these findings are occasionally picked up by the press, he himself does not meet notability. There is scant biographical information on him in this article, and so little of it is cited. In sum, he fails WP:GNG: ...a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...-- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Being a prolific book author (if one counts compiling a genealogy as a form of book authorship) only contributes towards notability if those books have published reviews, and I can't find any in this case. Nor is any other form of notability evident. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just deprodded so that this would get a closer look like what David Eppstein did. I thought there was a possibility that something might show up.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Regarding published reviews: publishing a well-researched and well-sourced genealogy certainly does count as book authorship. Genealogical books are reviewed in genealogical journals such as the NEHGS Register, which Gary Boyd Roberts contributed to, or the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, or others. Most of these journals are not on JSTOR, but are well-respected within their field and often peer-reviewed. His close involvement with the NEHGS shows he is more than an amateur genealogist, but a respected researcher. He definitely appears to be notable within the field of genealogy. Notable enough for Wikipedia? I am not sure. There do not appear to be many genealogists who bother to edit Wikipedia. They are too busy doing genealogy. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 23:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) What I mean is, there does not appear to be much consensus on Wikipedia regarding what is notable within the field of genealogy. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have actual references to in-depth and reliably published book reviews of his books? Preferably ones that not published by an organization for which he was director of publications. It would also be helpful if they could be viewed online but that's not a requirement. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• I found one review for Ancestors of American Presidents in the NEHGS Register that was not written by him, but by the main editor, Henry B. Hoff, although Roberts was also a consulting editor at the time, and the book was published by the same organization. It is in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 163, page 75. I have access at [1], and it looks like those with access to university libraries should be able to find it on EBSCO. Still looking for other reviews. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Looks like there is a review of The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States in a Canadian journal, Reference & Research Book News, volume 19, issue 2, starting on page 25. I can't figure out how to access. Another review in Arkansas Family Historian, Fall 2018, Vol. 56 Issue 3, p45-46 at EBSCO. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 20:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Found it [edit: the Reference & Research Book News review]. The entry reads: 'Roberts (New England Historic Genealogical Society) outlines the "best" royal descendants--from the most recent king--of 600-plus immigrants to the American colonies or the United States from the 17th century to the present, who were notable themselves or left descendants notable in American history. The immigrants fall into three categories: colonial notables; noted 19th- and 20th- century figures, or their wives, parents, or grandparents; and colonial immigrants who left sizable, often huge, progenies. The text includes a subject index and guide, alphabetized by title or surname, followed by the listings grouped into three sections: descendants of late medieval and early modern kings, high medieval kings, and early medieval kings.' Is this a review? If so, it's light/not critical.---- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yes, it is not a critical review. The NEHGR review (not written by Roberts, but by another editor, Henry B. Hoff) gives a touch of criticism: "The only disappointing aspect of the book is that the ancestry of more recent presidents is taken back only a certain number of generations, not necessarily to the immigrants." The review is three paragraphs long, and mainly describes the format of the book. It touches a little bit on the research, saying "This book, an updated version of the compiler's previous books and articles on the ancestry of American presidents, represents the current state of scholarship on the subject...There are many major additions and corrections from previous accounts." Still, not a very thorough review. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• What EBSCO databases do these appear in?-- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure how to find out. I found them referenced at my alma mater's university library website, but I no longer have access to the databases: Reference & Research Book News, volume 19, issue 2, page 25, ISSN: 08873763 and OGS Quarterly, volume 48, issue 3, page 166, ISSN: 15461408. Also note a Forbes article from 1984 discusses him: Saunders, Laura, "Descent from the trees, Forbes, 1984, volume 134:8, page 220, ISSN: 00156914

• @ Tea and crumpets: Do you know of any biographical information about him that is published by an organization with which he is not affiliated?-- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• I would imagine any published biographical information would be limited to promotional "about the author" or "about the speaker" materials in books he published and conference materials. I don't have any in my hand at the moment. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment There was some discussion of what constitutes a reliable source in the world of genealogical publications in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin, where it was suggested that a genealogical journal that is national in reach and has a firm editorial process might be considered reliable, but journals of non-national genealogical societies probably are not (Arkansas Family Historian would be an example, and probably also The New England Historical and Genealogical Register). Reference & Research Book News is perhaps more likely to be reliable, having wider scope. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Personally I would consider The New England Historical and Genealogical Register to be national in scope because most genealogists in the United States trace their lineages to New England. But it's debatable. National Genealogical Society Quarterly is a better example of a national in scope, peer-reviewed genealogical journal with critical book reviews, but their free searchable index is down right now so I am unable to locate any articles that discuss Roberts. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the New England Historic Genealogical Society is the premier such society in the United States. His work for them allows him to meet the relevant notability guideline for scholars. His work has been cited hundreds of times by news articles. Bearian ( talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Please explain what you mean by "such society"? Genealogical? New England? Historical? Do you have a source for NEGHS being the "premier such society"? The NEGHS article was in violation of copyright, promotional, and, for my lack of a better term, bloated until recently; that's the sort of phrasing the article used, which I haven't found elsewhere but might be able to add back if there is an independent source. Most of the news articles I found (on the genealogies of presidents and royalty, some of which wouldn't have been Boyd's own work) stemmed from several press releases. If you have something more than that, I would be interested to see it. Thanks! DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 13:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: A few thoughts:

1. The article was started by what appears to be a primarily single-purpose account (Gary Boyd Roberts and genealogy edits). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Gary Boyd Roberts, or someone associated with the New England Historic Genealogical Society, is the author, but it may just be a fan of his work. Regardless, the article is better now than it was before.

2. Some of Roberts' works are highly regarded within the genealogy community, but most of the press on his books and articles come from within the organization that publishes them/and/or that he works for. So far, I believe we have one source that reviews one of his works (that I pasted above). NEGHS is a large organization. Perhaps the genealogy community does not write scholarly reviews of other works as much as other disciplines do.

3. The biographical information has not been verified despite work done by several researchers here. No one has unearthed an interview or feature piece on him by any media. Should the biographical information be removed if it cannot be verified by those looking into improving the article now?

4. Wikipedia:NACADEMIC #6 could work, but I don't know whether "Senior Research Scholar" is indeed the highest position at NEGHS.

Thanks, all. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have only just started searching for sources on this person, but a quick Google News search shows that he is cited by news reports in many languages (eg Spanish, German, Indonesian, Czech, Hungarian, Italian, Arabic, etc) about the genealogical research he has done showing links between various well-known people (Clinton and Madonna, Elvis Presley and Jimmy Carter, Obama and Bush, that one of President Bush's ancestors was a slave trader, and of course that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are related). These articles go back to 2008, in the current google news (ie not archived). So I am thinking that he would meet WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."
  

I have also just done a quick search on Newspapers.com, and there are 744 results! I will need to spend time to cull the event listings, the occasions when he was a pall-bearer, etc - but I do see reviews of his books and reports about presentations he gave at conferences, in papers such as The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. I think it's likely that he will also meet WP:AUTHOR #3. I will try to add sources and any information in them to the article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Tea and crumpets: Thanks for all your comments. I see one of the databases is MasterFile Complete; I have MasterFile Premier, which is not so aptly named as it does not contain the article you cited. It sounds like Gary Boyd Roberts may meet notability based on his media coverage after all. And I too question whether NEGHS is not national... New England colonies were settled so early that it now has a wide national reach. And if not going back to immigrant generation is the main criticism in that one review, I'm actually satisfied that Boyd Roberts did not rely extensively upon commonly known research in that book (as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's combined ancestry is). Not that that matters for our purpose here. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ RebeccaGreen: When I searched for him on the open internet, I mostly got upcycled press releases picked up by the popular media due to celebrity connections, and nothing much to show his peers/successors took his work further, unless we count the book for which he wrote an introduction or foreword. Hmm, I had not checked Newspapers.com. On looking at it now, I see he does have much more coverage there than in ProQuest newspapers! Thank you for offering to improve the article with what you've found. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Given that Who's Who is considered kind of fishy for notability I'm not sure if receiving their Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award ( as Roberts did earlier this year) would qualify for WP:PROF#C2. However, the Who's Who website does describe it as very prestigious. [2] IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have started adding references to the article - so far reviews of two publications, and sources that verify his early life, education and career. I'll try to do more tomorrow. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 18:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• keep per WP:AUTHOR "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Good work by Bearian and RebeccaGreen Lightburst ( talk) 03:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A dearth of reviews by independent reliable sources, certainly not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. No specific in-depth biographical coverage of him either, so does not pass WP:BIO. The "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" is a well-known vanity gimmick award by a vanity press. The presence of this award here is a major red flag. Nsk92 ( talk) 08:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Nsk92: I don't see any mention of an "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" in the article about Gary Boyd Roberts under consideration here. Did you perhaps intend that as a vote on another AfD? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

See Comment three paragraphs above mine, by IntoThinAir, with timestamp 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC). The Nelson "award", with a link, is mentioned there. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:06, 10 August 2019 (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.