Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Ainsworth Mitchell

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 keep. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ainsworth Mitchell[edit]

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

Subject of article fails WP:Notability. The references cited are primary, mainly evidence of existence (1911 publication Science and the Criminal; report on determination of forgery, receipt from US Library of Congress for copy of report, news item covering lecture by Mitchell (1930). Coatrack article for a Bahá'í Faith controversy. (Account name for article is that of a figure involved in the controversy.) Neonorange (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Some interest for early criminology. Operated before the web, so few sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources, it is not a place for original research. It is also not a place to right wrongs. If someone did not receive notice, and if other people writing on them has not been done in either their time or ours, then the article is not worth keeping. Due to digitizing of out of copyright works, the claim about lack of sources is questionable. Yes, there are fewer sources from them, but a good portion of the ones that do exist can be found on the web.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep . The link for the book seems to be a 2010 reprint. This suggests that someone thought the book important enough to be worth reprinting. It is possible that further research would throw up further publications. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of the Society of Public Analysts, fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, early advocate of pinhole solargraphy, head inspector at Scotland Yard, etc - seems to meet notability for professors, gng.Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I did not find anything about the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá. It was probably a minor part of his life that has grown in importance as the religion has grown, while the rest of his accomplishments have seemed to shrink as chemistry and criminology progressed. In any case, his role in a number of interesting stories and prominent institutions in the 1900s through 1930s seem to make him notable, in my opinion.

Also, a quick look at google scholar suggests his h-index is above 8. While the h-index isn't really used for notability, I thought it was interesting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—as nominator. Based on the work by Smmurphy I am no longer concerned about the coatrack aspect; this article is now clearly about Mitchell and his contributions and not a grinned-up contribution to a controversy. — Neonorange (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: secondary biographical sources are out there, beyond the trivial mentions in newspapers: a 3 page obituary in Analyst, of which he was appointed editor in 1920. His works are in over 2800 library holdings per WorldCat, and his work is mentioned in varying degrees of detail in several modern books, e.g. A Catalogue of the Law Collection at New York University (1999), Legal Medicine in History (1994), and especially Prisoners, Lovers, and Spies (2014), which calls him "an expert on the chemistry of inks who would later become one of England's most respected forensic scientists." Hint: it helps to search for strings like "Charles Ainsworh Mitchell", "C. A. Mitchell" in addition to "C. Ainsworh Mitchell". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 58 works at Internet Archive, he's clearly notable as an author who is widely held in libraries. -- GreenC 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2016 (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.