Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold George Jerrard

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The result was Withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold George Jerrard[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)

seems to be not notable, google scholar gives several publications but it's not enough. other than that, I didn't find anything significant, besides obituary that is cited as source. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present, since the article does not make any claim to notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). A couple of published books is not sufficient to make an academic notable. I'm open to changing my !vote if evidence of notability is presented. --Srleffler (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think he has the citation counts for WP:PROF#C1, but I added enough published book reviews to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I take that back. With two papers with over 200 citations each in Google Scholar despite their early date (one from 1948 and the other from 1954) he does have a weak case for WP:PROF#C1 as well, especially as I found other sources from much later specifically describing his contributions in one of these papers as being important. I missed the 1954 one in my earlier searches because the publisher spells his name wrong (something something irony of OCR going wrong for the OSA) so it wasn't showing up in the searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others above. I also note the publication A Dictionary of Scientific Units, Including Dimensionless Numbers and Scales did 6 editions over 30 years, and I think it did a seventh, and is used on WP to cite stuff as its in OL! I believe FinstP may also satisfy Wikipedia:NACADEMICS#3. An image should be available at some point due to his Fareham Mayoral duties. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR. I think the WP:PROF#C1 case is also pretty good, considering the time period. I don't know if we've ever decided whether or not Fellow of the Institute of Physics counts for WP:PROF#C3, but it doesn't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion, but I agree with the facts above and so I change my vote for keep too. Artem.G (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2021 (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.