Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steuart Campbell (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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steuart Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO without independent sources. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Notability is demonstrated by the author having published books, and by his work being cited by others (see the first AfD). Better sources need to be found, no question. John (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can understand why this was submitted for deletion because there were no references on it originally. Unfortunately users over the years have been lazy. I have added some sources, there are also a lot of newspaper articles that mention Steuart Campbell (I have access to Findmypast and Newspapers.com) so I can expand the article with other sources. This for me is a keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Out of the 12 citations now in the article, a total of 5 appear to be independent coverage of the subject and his works. Coverage could therefore be better of this science author - but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt particularly as Psychologist Guy has confirmed further sources which would support WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 21:31, 18 September 2024 (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.