- 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! 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- John Farnsworth Wright (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)
unnotable professor. only sourced to an obituary. ltbdl (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as internet search did not discover any sources other than the obituary to establish notability. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That obituary appeared in The Times. A check of the Times Digital Archive shows that it is a full obituary. We have always considered an obit in a major national newspaper to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Times only gives full obits to notable people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @necrothesp: since when?? ltbdl (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when what? Since when did we consider an obit in a major newspaper conferred notability? Since forever. There is long consensus for this. Why on earth would Wikipedia not consider people to be notable if the main British newspaper of record did? Another example of the contrast between Wikiworld and the real world that some editors seem to champion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Times obituary should be enough, but for those who worship every letter of holy WP:GNG and need to see multiple in-depth sources, I added to the article several published reviews of his book. Because there is only the one book, it isn't quite enough for WP:AUTHOR, but we're going by GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG per arguments of Necrotheshp and David Eppstein. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:31, 27 February 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.