Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Brown

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. Haukur (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Brown[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)

Subject is an academic and an author. No indication in the article that he meets WP:NACADEMIC. As for WP:AUTHOR, he wrote one book that is somewhat known but doesn't appear to rise to the notability standard. There is a claim that the book was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, but it is unsourced and I have been unable to verify it. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- nominator. I can't withdraw the nomination since there are others supporting delete, but I am changing my support to keep (and will be providing the trout...) Paisarepa (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being nominated for an award does not make a work notable in most cases, nominations are often cheap. We would need multiple reviews showing that Brown's bio of Hofstaer is notable to show that Brown is a notable writer and that is lacking. I have to wonder if the article is outdated since it mentions his last work was 10 years ago. Ok, most historians do not have the output level of Fred E. Woods (that article I do not think has been updated with all his works), although Woods publishes multiple works that are variations on the same theme, and Woods is more a compiler than a writer of prose, but there is no indication that Brown is seen as an impactful historian, and I say that as someone who has engaged more in metahistorial intellectual history studies than many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Setting aside the supposed Pulitzer nomination, his faculty profile already makes a clear case for WP:PROF#C5 (endowed professorship) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of his books): "David Brown, Raffensperger Professor of History ... His work has been reviewed in the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, (London) Sunday Times, The Irish Times, and The Australian." As nominated, the article already contained external links to NYT and WSJ reviews of his books, so there is little excuse for the nominator to have failed to account for this in the nomination, and even less excuse for JPL to say we "need multiple reviews" when those reviews are already present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Major thanks for the improvements to the article. And you're right, I shouldn't have missed the NYT and WSJ reviews. Paisarepa (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 and (easily) WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Holder of a named professorship and author of several books that are likely themselves to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure he passes NPROF(5) (as Elizabethtown College would not seem major), and given the common name I am having difficulty assessing NPROF(1) (I did manage to ascertain at least one other scholar with the same name passes). However, Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography clearly passes WP:NBOOK and to a lesser degree Beyond the Frontier: The Midwestern Voice in American Historical Writing would as well - convincing me that NAUTHOR is quite likely to be met (as might NPROF). Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HEY Keep. Kudos to David Epstein for sourcing and improving the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 16 July 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.