Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Scott Daniell

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott Daniell

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

fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. unremarkable career LibStar (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG insight (Thank god for librarians)ShoesssS ^Talk 17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Delete – Sorry, I did note that his military research work has been cited a few times, however just does not meet WP:Author status. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found online that his books are in 1,900 libraries, which must count for something. I'd like to hear from DGG before making up my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, that is bordering on canvassing. You shouldn't invite just one other to participate in an AfD, especially since you are going to vote the same way as DGG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there's a biographical account by a contemporary author and comics collector & reprinter Steve Holland on his blog which makes it plain that Daniell was a significant mid/20th century comic book writer, who also wrote a number of miscellaneous works ( a "pictorial history of fighting men" called soldiers,soldiers (about 200 libraries) ; an equally short history of WWII, 2 histories of British Regiments, a 130 p. "Discovering the Bible", a book of similar size about plants, about 4 or 5 similar inconsequential nonfiction books, and a large number of novels mostly for children of which only s few copies each still exist in WorldCat libraries. Holdings of older books of this sort are deceptive: first, he's a UK author, and Worldcat is mainly american libraries--it doesn't matter for major works, it does for this sort of publication,; Worldcat also dramatically underrepresents older children's books, which most public libraries discard as matter of course except for a few classics. But all his books were published by major publishers such as Jonathan Cape , some even by University of London Press! I've identified translations of some of his books into Spanish, German, Danish, Finnish; this indicates the works were considered of importance at the time. A/c the blog bio, he also wrote 600 radio and tv plays, and that may be the most significant part of his career--though much harder to research than published books. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @LibStar, do you still want to keep this open? czar ♔ 19:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I honestly trust the opinion of DGG because of his real-life work as a librarian, as well as his long service as an admin. If it makes you happy, I'm not going to !vote. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as an admin, well you should know better than to directly contact certain individuals to participate in specific AfDs. the deletion sorter allows people to participate in AfD topics they're interested in. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a big deal to ask a content area expert (e.g., librarian) for his known expertise on a low traffic topic. Anyway, do you want to keep this open for more responses or would it be suitable to close now? Wanted to ask as a courtesy, though this looks finished czar ♔ 02:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always reminded people asking me for an opinion that I decide on the basis of my own judgement of the underlying issue, and the result will often not be what is hoped for or expected. Not that I think Berian expected anything in particular. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks a delete, but the info found in this afd says otherwise. Szzuk (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2014 (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.