Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter John Raymond

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. Courcelles 06:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter John Raymond[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. His medal is very commendable, but I don't think it meets notability criteria. He does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC either. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per variety of signicant and notable career accomplishments. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I seem to have spooled this bio out because, per WP:AUTH, he wrote the Dictionary of Politics, which is quite possibly a WP:RS we use, or may use in the future, on any number of articles (at least one that I know of off hand). It's helpful, and in keeping with the mission of the project, to provide such backgrounders on authors of significant reliable sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we get any other RS other than the obituary? Can editors who voted keep (ping User:Boleyn, User:Kendrick7) explain which part of WP:PROF or larger WP:GNG do they think he is passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have published several books. Have you tried looking for reviews and citations? A bibliography section should be added to the article. His Dictionary of Politics is in its 7th edition.Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2013

Delete I do not see notability as an academic -- his books are not even in worldcat. That's below any minimum standard.(UTC)

Correction. His books are in WorldCat. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books are not only in WorldCat, but in many hundreds of libraries. Dictionary of Politics has gone into 7 editions, which is a good indication of very high nimportance for an academic ro profesional book. Even if he founded the publishing company himself, he was successful at it. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Candleabracadabra and User:DGG, above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2014 (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.