Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antony Crockett

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. L Faraone 02:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Crockett[edit]

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

Article about a general practioner. Article was created on 11 September 2009‎ by Confidopoax, who is the major contributor and who also created articles on other members of the Crockett family at the same time, so this appears to be an example of personal genealogy. The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion. On 6 October 2009‎, User:DGG‎ declined the speedy, commenting "As reviewing admin, I think this shows at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion." DGG did, though, add notability and refimprove tags. No changes were made or references added before 23 December 2009 when User:78.105.49.90 removed the notability and refimprove tags with no reason given. Since then, no references have been added and there has been no substantial alteration to the article. The article seems to assert notability by relationships, e.g. to father, grandfather, uncle and a distant ancestor, but these themselves are articles created or heavily edited by the same editor. External links do not provide sufficient independent detail (one is to the GPs' surgery which confims he's a GP there and the other is to his company's webiste). Emeraude (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. Without the books, I would have deleted as A7, but asserting authorship of a non-self published book is a claim of importance enough to pass speedy, though not necessarily notability, I just now added proper refs for the 2 books, one aimed at physicians, one at patients.. I am not sure whether or not he is a notable author--the worldcat holding for each are less than 100, but these are books specific to the UK medical system, and Worldcat covers primarily US & Canadian libraries, with only some major academic libraries elsewhere. I can not comprehensively find book reviews for books in this subject outside the US, but I did find a review for his professionally-oriented book from BMJ, the major British medical journal. Both books are published by two leading UK publishers, Blackwell, and Churchill-Livingston. Of course his ancestors do not show notability for him, and the article gives no indication the ed. is so foolish as to claim it does, but at least one of them, the martyr, is certainly notable; the theatre director probably is, the military officer probably not. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually one of the military officers, his grandfather Basil Crockett, was awarded the DSO 3 times, and reached the rank of Colonel, and served during the Great War. The other (his uncle Anthony John Sinclair Crockett), served during the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency, achieved a slightly lower rank of Major, and "only" an OBE, and wrote a memoir, but he doesn't have an article (yet) anyway. I'm very much less sure about the tv director, but at least he is dead, which means the notability stakes are lower. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not totally sure if you were trying to make this as a notability argument but the established understanding is that notability is not inherited. Zad68 19:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it was an aside to the aside (although as another aside WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY, is used to mean 2 different things (significance v coverage), is very crude (WP:IARs WP:IAR) and is pretty well misunderstood by everyone. If his close relatives were very well known (and very well studied), things might be different, but they're not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ If the claim to notability is for him as an author, the fact that he has written books isn't enough by itself. All the specialized criteria in WP:NAUTHOR require independent, third-party notice of the author's works. That his books are held in libraries isn't sufficient, I would not think. The catch-all WP:42 isn't satisfied here. Zad68 20:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ACADEMIC #3, if this is to be believed, and no reason to think it should not, he is indeed a FRCGP and so would meet that guideline. Zad68 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as has been pointed out, he seems to be FRCGP, which is not an insignificant honour. Does he meet WP:PROF due to his publications (over 200 on asthma)? [1] Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, FRCGP, really? That would change my !vote per WP:NPROF. Where was that pointed out, that he's a FRCGP? I'm not seeing that mentioned unless I'm just missing it. I also looked for sources to support but couldn't find any. Zad68 19:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found it here, so that changes my !vote. Zad68 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only weak keep -- The question depends on how significant his books are, which I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2013 (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.