Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. W. Stephen Brodsky

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Based on the work that other editors have noted has been done since the nomination was opened to improve the article, consensus has been reached here that the article now meets notability criteria sufficiently. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 03:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. W. Stephen Brodsky[edit]

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

G. W. Stephen Brodsky (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. References are either the subejct's books or short reviews of them, but not anything in-depth about the author. Couldn't find anything on Google, Google News, and NewspaperARCHIVE either. MrClog (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep - the sources found through JSTOR (which I cannot access) convinced me that the person is notable. --MrClog (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (user voted !keep below) Note that with WP:AUTHOR, and WP:CREATIVE it is not necessary to know anything about the author; we keep many pages on anonymous sculptors, composers, and writers, and many pages on writers with important books about whom few biographical details can be sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, directly under the "Additional criteria" section of WP:NBIO, it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Even anonymous people can be covered by RS (e.g. discuss how they operate or their art style). --MrClog (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. I do hope that you will read the book reviews and discuss Brodsky's research methods and artistic style. The reviews of his book on Joseph Conrad are mixed, both of the reviews that I read of his book on the British military were admiring. In sum, certainly the article can and should be improved, but the book reviews do carry him past WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, sorry, I'm missing your point here. The quote I provided specifically mentions that meeting WP:AUTHOR is merely an indication that someone is likely to be notable, not that they are notable. To examine whether they are notable, we need to look if WP:BASIC is met. As asked below, which sources are in-depth RS discussing Mr. Brodsky? --MrClog (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comment confused you, the thing is, we have separate notability criteria for several categories of persons, among these is WP:AUTHOR, it does not require that the person have in-depth biographical coverage, but, rather, that the things the person wrote must have in-depth coverage in, for example, the form of multiple book reviews. I hope that this clears things up for you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR is merely a way to quickly determine if someone's likely to meet WP:BASIC, per the quote above: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This quote is about all the additional criteria listed at WP:NBIO, which includes WP:AUTHOR. --MrClog (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you specify your reasons for this assertion? I have looked at page creator's editing record, and I do not see a COI. What am I missing here?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass notability for academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps Nom and editors above missed the series of book reviews improperly entered so that they appeared as a clump at the bottom of the page. I have added additional reviews that came up in a JSTOR search. Passes WP:AUTHOR]. Note that some of the reviews include BIO details from which page can be improved. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which specific sources did you find to contain in-depth bio details? --MrClog (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out above, it is irrelevant to notability under WP:AUTHOR. Nevertheless I did source teaching position at Royal Roads Military College to one of the book reviews. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The question still stands though: which of the book reviews give some in-depth bio information? Because as I explained above, the man still needs to meet WP:BASIC: MrClog (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a 2nd source (book review) on his military career and teaching position; do note that the article was sourced to a regimental history by a previous editor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. G. W. Stephen Brodsky has had a notable military and academic career, including writings that have been reviewed in an array of scholarly publications. His book on Joseph Conrad alone deserves interest for the light it sheds on Conrad's Polish roots – often overlooked or minimized – which influenced his fiction and nonfiction works. Nihil novi (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, at least two of Brodsky's books: Gentlemen of the Blade, and Joseph Conrad's Polish Soul meet WP:NBOOK, having received multiple reviews, Brodsky's research appears to concentrate on joseph conrad (going on the books he has written and the number of contributions he has made to journals such as Conradiana), some editors may see this as too obscure for WP, its not, as anyone with an interest in european literature will know this is significant, so with the reviews he meets WP:AUTHOR and is a keep.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • or i suppose we can delete this and make two standalone articles on the books mentioned above..... Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per NAUTHOR. The alternative is repurposing the article tomcover one of the books and creating another article dor the other notable book - keeping tue bio is simpler.Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to E.M.Gregory's efforts. GirthSummit (blether) 19:35, 3 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._W._Stephen_Brodsky&oldid=1137865633"