- 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. Olaf Davis ( talk) 12:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Richard Crawford (historian)
- Richard Crawford (historian) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We received an inquiry about this article via OTRS 2014041510022021, which prompted me to take a closer look at it. It doesn't look to me like this guy passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. His books were either printed by a very small or even self-owned press (See [1]), and his awards seem very regional. I simply can't find enough to verify notability. If we do wind up finding enough to keep it, it needs to be cleaned a bit - with content like "due to his expansive knowledge of the subject", it truly does come across as a promotional piece. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not appear to meet GNG, nor are awards sufficient or published work sufficiently weighty in academic use for pass under academic special notability low bars. Carrite ( talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not seem notable. Points made by Carrite are quite valid. No indication of notable scholarship. Intothat darkness 21:33, 23 April 2014 (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.
- 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. Olaf Davis ( talk) 12:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Richard Crawford (historian)
- Richard Crawford (historian) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We received an inquiry about this article via OTRS 2014041510022021, which prompted me to take a closer look at it. It doesn't look to me like this guy passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. His books were either printed by a very small or even self-owned press (See [1]), and his awards seem very regional. I simply can't find enough to verify notability. If we do wind up finding enough to keep it, it needs to be cleaned a bit - with content like "due to his expansive knowledge of the subject", it truly does come across as a promotional piece. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not appear to meet GNG, nor are awards sufficient or published work sufficiently weighty in academic use for pass under academic special notability low bars. Carrite ( talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not seem notable. Points made by Carrite are quite valid. No indication of notable scholarship. Intothat darkness 21:33, 23 April 2014 (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.