Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Budden

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. RL0919 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Budden[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one of the references covers him in detail, and I can't determine from the archived version if it's from a reliable source. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST in RS, like this: National Geographic, Medical History Museum, and Discover Magazine. Notable with an unfortunate and untimely death. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he is primarily notable for one event, and I considered invoking WP:1E, I believe he passes WP:ANYBIO because him catching the taipan and the research it has allowed for "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." The article is also well sourced and currently includes coverage from multiple independent sources. -- SamCordes^talk 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst and SamCordes. Bookscale (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I spent quite a bit of time reading several articles on this. Apparently, Kevin Budden's capture of the first live taipan for research was a watershed event in solving the Australian problem of treating people bitten by venomous snakes. And in any and every story about antivenom research (with regards Australian venemous snakes) Kevin Budden is always mentioned. (I also made some edits to the article.) Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable as being thoroughly referenced in reliable sources as follows historically here and per "keith" and here. And then there are the more modern day references too, hence SUSTAINED. Article needs to reflect the mis identification as "Keith". There are more historical references under this incorrect name than there are under the correct name. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2019 (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.