Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Napier (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Napier (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)

Fails WP:BIO, specifically, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Our notability rules for who should be subject to a WP:BLP are much more strict now than they were in 2007 when we last discussed this article and there are no more forthcoming sources on which to write an encyclopedic article. jps (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion that there are no sources is simply untrue. You have to look under William, as well as Bill, moreover, since he is not the only notable William Napier, you have to add a search term lime "comet" whereupon you run into the other famous astronomer named Napier. I'm adding some stuff. Like many Wikipedia articles it needs more attention.ShulMaven (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant coverage to establish WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't find significant coverage anywhere, no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, [1] and [2] establish the margin of notability via WP:AUTHOR, and [3] provides additional coverage for his academic work. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The sources above don't know any book reviews in a significant publication. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I was ready to follow j⚛e decker but after checking his sources I changed my mind. The first source is a negative review of his book; the second link is to an article by Napier (which would be appropriate in a bibliography but not as a reference). The third is a short article in a reliable resource about his work, but that's only one. The reviews of his books on Amazon are pretty low, from 2-3 stars. Given the publishing and book-selling industry today, adding so-so authors to Wikipedia would be a full-time job. (Then again, deleting their pages may be one as well.) LaMona (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a scientist and as a minor writer. I don't know anything about astrophysics, but I do know a little about universities, and places like Buckingham and Cardiff don't give honorary appointments without a good reason. (reasons vary, but sometimes notable scholars who have money, or at least enough money to pursue research without a salary, but who do not want the irksome chore of teaching, are given honorary appointments) His page is linked from a number of other astronomy Wikipedia pages. And there was a lot of press coverage of at least one major paper of his, some of which I will now add. ShulMaven (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: providing more time to discuss newly applied sources. BusterD (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, the sources aren't the best out there, but they're probably good enough. In reply to User:LaMona, the fact that an author gets bad reviews shouldn't keep us from having a page here, so long as the author gets enough coverage in reliable sources for us to build a decent biography. After all, we still have articles on L. Ron Hubbard and Stephenie Meyer! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, you are right that bad reviews don't offset reliable sources. Unfortunately, I don't find the latter. LaMona (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete maybe notable in the future but not yet--Mevagiss (talk) 11:17, 16 November 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.