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. Deor (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Mansfield Poole[edit]

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

There is no reason why this article should be preserved: similar articles on rowers who only took part in the Boat Race have previously been deleted. Geoffreyofmonmouth (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~neutral I'm really hard-pressed to find any reason to keep this one. That said, WP practice for collegiate sports seems to be that anyone who picks up a pigskin is an immediate keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, as an active member of WP:CFB, I can say with some authority that CFB player articles get deleted at AfD all the time. Few CFB players satisfy WP:NCOLLATH, but many more do satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON (after they become pro players). That having been said, CFB is extremely popular and the sport seems to attract more than its share of enthusiastic new editors and article creators who don't understand the applicable notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show notability or significant coverage. Going to Oxford and rowing against Cambridge are not enough to show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep nominator has set up an account to delete several articles in a matter of minutes. the article is focused on the subject's participation in the boat race but the subject appears to have been a fairly significant author on a brief search of google books. should be a build opportunity so hard to see how it helps to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.73.51 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established author of standard text books. Bibliography extendedMJT21 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unconvincing and the refs don't look up to WP:V. I checked the refs where possible. As an author he wrote academic text books, basically school books. Participating in the boat race isn't up to much nor being a school headmaster. Nor anything about his life. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way matches up to notability criteria. Snowgoose07 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears that Commercial French is a two volume tome that ran to at least seven impressions through a notable publishing house. It isn't a 'school book' as indicated above. It seems his other books were published by John Murray, another notable publishing house. If writing text books for children isn't notable, as indicated by Szzuk, then why are authors of fictional books for children included on wikipedia. On that basis you'd delete JK Rowling! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.5.40 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Magical Creatures and Where to Find Them isn't a textbook.

I'm withdrawing my delete though, on the basis of the textbooks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Language textbooks at a secondary school level. They would be enough to make him notable if they were the most widely used UJK books at the time. Since almost no libraries ever kept books of this sort on a long term basis, it is not possible to tell how important they might have been from WorldCat. One indication that they might be widely used is that there were multiple books at different levels over a 15 year period worldcat author page. all from John Murray, a very major UK educational publisher of the period ; had they been unsuccessful, the publisher wouldn't have continued. Further investigation could be done, but it would be a serious research project. Additionally, he was head of foreign language depts at Osborne, the UK approx. equiv. of West Point. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 29 October 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.