Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basil Cottle

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 speedy keep. After the applied searching by other editors who found plenty of other sources. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Cottle

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

Sourced entirely from an obituary. WP:BIO and WP:BLP1 not satisfied. Dysklyver 14:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in the Independent certainly goes a long way towards notability. Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries also passes WP:PROF#C3. – Joe (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You cannot have BLP concerns over dead people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that obituaries of Basil Cottle were also published elsewhere, including The Guardian and The Times. Can anyone find copies? Whilst his life may have been of limited fame, his published works make him very notable. In some cases his works provide the most authoritative and important sources on their subjects. Reference to his works are made in other entries in Wikipedia. The quality of such references is enhanced by background information on the author. Charlemaniac (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2017 (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.