- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
William Barr McKay
- William Barr McKay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a writer, referenced exclusively to the WorldCat directory entries for his book with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. And, for that matter, even the substance of the article itself just states that McKay existed and then goes on to be about the book rather than containing any further biographical detail about the person. While it's possible that the book may qualify for a proper article about the book, if it can be sourced to more than just Worldcat, that's not a reason why we would need a separate biography of its writer that was sourced this poorly and contained this little detail about him as a standalone topic. Bearcat ( talk) 17:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- fails WP:AUTHOR does not meet WP:BIO and lacks WP:CS -- EC Racing ( talk) 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If he has a worldcat entry, then it is an automatic keep. The article will develop as time goes on, and regarding the books, it is a old standard, which has been on the go for decades. scope_creep ( talk) 12:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gbooks has about 10 books written by him, and they are still sold on Weathespoons and Amazon. scope_creep ( talk) 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have sent a email to the Journal of Structural Engineers at the Institute of Structural Engineering which seems to have some info on him. scope_creep ( talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, a WorldCat entry is not an automatic keep for a writer in and of itself — if that were true, we would have to keep an article about every single writer who ever existed at all, because every published book always gets into WorldCat. A writer qualifies for an article by being the subject of coverage in
reliable sources, not by having directory entries on WorldCat or GoogleBooks or Amazon or by collecting unpublished information by private e-mail from a non-media organization he was directly affiliated with.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ Bearcat:, I think I have to raise issue about Scope creep ( talk · contribs) here as he has repeated his baseless argument and clear lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTABILITY, and this is not the first time. On 15 October, I declined an article at WP:AFC which was only sourced with a Worldcat entry. This user swiftly wrote on my talkpage in bossy tone that I should be careful, because having Worldcat entry is automatic notability on Wikipedia. He didn't even read my reason of declining (it wasn't even notability) because he was eager to warn me. I ignored most of his off topic remark and responded to the crux of the issue only: The chat can be seen here: User talk:Ammarpad#Carl Paul Pfleidererm. Uptill now 7 days later, Scope creep cannot adequately respond to the points I raised nor does he seem to fully understand what he wrote. And he is here repeating the same unfounded argument at AfD discussion. Since he cannot respond to the points on my talkpage, and he is repeating same thing here, it will surely be beneficial for all of us (and this discussion); if @ Scope creep: can explain to us from which Wikipedia policy or guideline he derives this notion of Worldcat entry notability automation. Thanks all – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete unless we can find more material from reliable sources to allow an article with more information than is in currently in the article. Capitalistroadster ( talk) 05:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:AUTHOR as he is not subject of discussion in any reliable independent source – Ammarpad ( talk) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Well it looks like he is headed for the bin, unless I can find some info. scope_creep ( talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Ammarpad, Fair enough I seem to have made a mistake about Worldcat entries. Somebody told me. It was wrong. Lets move on. scope_creep ( talk) 14:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ammarpad, I have left a comment as a reply, which you are looking for, on your talk page. scope_creep ( talk) 15:01, 22 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
William Barr McKay
- William Barr McKay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a writer, referenced exclusively to the WorldCat directory entries for his book with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. And, for that matter, even the substance of the article itself just states that McKay existed and then goes on to be about the book rather than containing any further biographical detail about the person. While it's possible that the book may qualify for a proper article about the book, if it can be sourced to more than just Worldcat, that's not a reason why we would need a separate biography of its writer that was sourced this poorly and contained this little detail about him as a standalone topic. Bearcat ( talk) 17:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- fails WP:AUTHOR does not meet WP:BIO and lacks WP:CS -- EC Racing ( talk) 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If he has a worldcat entry, then it is an automatic keep. The article will develop as time goes on, and regarding the books, it is a old standard, which has been on the go for decades. scope_creep ( talk) 12:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gbooks has about 10 books written by him, and they are still sold on Weathespoons and Amazon. scope_creep ( talk) 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have sent a email to the Journal of Structural Engineers at the Institute of Structural Engineering which seems to have some info on him. scope_creep ( talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, a WorldCat entry is not an automatic keep for a writer in and of itself — if that were true, we would have to keep an article about every single writer who ever existed at all, because every published book always gets into WorldCat. A writer qualifies for an article by being the subject of coverage in
reliable sources, not by having directory entries on WorldCat or GoogleBooks or Amazon or by collecting unpublished information by private e-mail from a non-media organization he was directly affiliated with.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ Bearcat:, I think I have to raise issue about Scope creep ( talk · contribs) here as he has repeated his baseless argument and clear lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTABILITY, and this is not the first time. On 15 October, I declined an article at WP:AFC which was only sourced with a Worldcat entry. This user swiftly wrote on my talkpage in bossy tone that I should be careful, because having Worldcat entry is automatic notability on Wikipedia. He didn't even read my reason of declining (it wasn't even notability) because he was eager to warn me. I ignored most of his off topic remark and responded to the crux of the issue only: The chat can be seen here: User talk:Ammarpad#Carl Paul Pfleidererm. Uptill now 7 days later, Scope creep cannot adequately respond to the points I raised nor does he seem to fully understand what he wrote. And he is here repeating the same unfounded argument at AfD discussion. Since he cannot respond to the points on my talkpage, and he is repeating same thing here, it will surely be beneficial for all of us (and this discussion); if @ Scope creep: can explain to us from which Wikipedia policy or guideline he derives this notion of Worldcat entry notability automation. Thanks all – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete unless we can find more material from reliable sources to allow an article with more information than is in currently in the article. Capitalistroadster ( talk) 05:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:AUTHOR as he is not subject of discussion in any reliable independent source – Ammarpad ( talk) 11:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Well it looks like he is headed for the bin, unless I can find some info. scope_creep ( talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Ammarpad, Fair enough I seem to have made a mistake about Worldcat entries. Somebody told me. It was wrong. Lets move on. scope_creep ( talk) 14:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ammarpad, I have left a comment as a reply, which you are looking for, on your talk page. scope_creep ( talk) 15:01, 22 October 2017 (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.