Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jurgens

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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Jurgens[edit]

Fails notability per WP:BIO. No secondary sources available and his books don't appear to be widely cited. Esrever 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BIO. Partially agree with nom. There aren't any reliable sources available. --Sethacus 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources not available from where? Google is not the only source. Mstuomel 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per WP:BIO ILovePlankton 16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, numerous Catholic history books in Google Books do cite him. It is unlikely that many reviews of his books will be online. --Dhartung | Talk 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Fr. Jurgens' books are used frequently in Catholic RCIA classes (see Google for plenty of examples), although I'm not sure that in itself warrants an article on him. Perhaps the books he compiled "Faith of the Early Fathers" deserve the article and he deserves a mention in it? SkerHawx 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen this argument before where an author is primarily known for one title, but I don't like the solution. A book can never have more authors (unless revised), but an author can write more books. It makes more sense to have those in the article on the author, and the judgement call on when the notability is acquired by the book vs. the author is one I'd prefer we didn't make. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moderate keep- as above, some validity here, and I heard him quoted in a debate once. Noteworthy if small article...JJJ999 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dhartung that we should prefer to have the article on the author in most cases--it offers more possibity for growth. In this case there are several related books, and so the author would seem to be the choice. Certainly there isnt enough notability for both. DGG (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Dhartung. --Sc straker 01:48, 8 October 2007 (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.