Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lonsdale

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Lonsdale

Tom Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

not notable veterinarian. Worldcat shows his 2 books have only 107 & 55 holdings, which is trivial for books about dogs. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I know that it is important to be cautious about whether articles meet the notability threshold - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) - but I think this article does meet the threshold. Granted, his books may not have a wide library holdings. However, there are other considerations. For instance, if you look at the media paragraph, and in particular the references, you will see that he is widely cited, over an extended period of time, in reputable media, including Australia's national broadcaster. Regards, Research17 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as a postscript, herewith is a clip from an interview with Ray Martin (television presenter), interviewing Tom Lonsdale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgCJmHzZjT4. There are numerous references to where Lonsdale is cited in media over recent decades, such as the BBC. Regards, Research17 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a further note regarding discussion on deletion for this article. I note that the Notability Guideline WP:N stipulates that to be considered notable, a subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you look under the list of television, radio and news interviews with Dr Lonsdale, over an extended period of time, I think there is evidence that there has been significant coverage in reliable sources. My referencing might not have been initially as clear as it ought to have been, and my apologies for this. However this has now been rectified. I note that the Notability Guideline also stipulates that not everything in an article needs to satisfy the notability test. Thus, even if Dr Lonsdale's books are not widely held in public libraries, my understanding is that this does not necessarily mean that the article does not meet the notability test. In view of the above, I would request that the AfD tag be withdrawn. Research17 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Media coverage

In order to further discussion, see here references to media coverage of Tom Lonsdale. . As previously indicated, my apologies that I did not make these references clearer earlier. However I believe these are reliable sources, and thus this is why I'd suggest the Lonsdale article does meet the Wikipedia notability threshold. Research17 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References

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.