Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Skinner (surgeon)

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.

Alexander Skinner (surgeon)

Alexander Skinner (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not seeing coverage to establish

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:GNG. Deleteopedia (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is a peculiar nomination; even stranger than the proposition that deletion would be uncontroversial. Owning lots of land seems to be a straw man as this is not the main basis of the subject's notability. And appearing in lots of sources is not a lack of notability; quite the contrary. The book George Washington's Kentucky Land seems to be quite respectable and well-researched and, insofar as it covers the subject in detail, is fine for our purpose. And the subject appears in plenty of other works including The Centenary of Louisville; Kentucky Pioneer Doctors; Medicine in Kentucky; The Encyclopedia of Louisville; The American Struggle for the British West India Carrying-trade; The Field of Honor; Medicine in Virginia in the Eighteenth Century; and, of course, numerous records of the Continental Army and the Revolutionary War. It is especially engaging to read that the subject was indicted by a grand jury for "profane swearing". As such details have yet to be added to the article, the policy
  WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC).[reply
  ]

● COMMENT Hi,

ARoseWolf, couldn't let you get away with that haha. I'm Team Keep. Deleteopedia (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• No,
  guideline. In any case, this is moot because the topic clearly passes both. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

George Washington's Kentucky Land - The subject does receive significant coverage in this well researched book. All of the other sources would be considered passing mentions. Simply appearing in a literary work does not confer notability. The notability requirement states that the subject must receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent sources. This requirement is not met. A subjects Army record is fine to use if notability is confirmed or if it is presumed but presumed notability can be rebutted as is the case here.

Talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:GNG actually says that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". That's what we have here -- a good detailed source and numerous other sources that provide other details about the subject, such as their views on duelling, their role in the medical history of Louisville and so forth. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you are going to quote something then at least quote the whole something and don't cherry pick to meet your own subjective opinions. I'll let others go there and read it for themselves to find out what is missing from your selective usage. --
  Talk) 19:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My quote was accurate; yours wasn't. See
  WP:SAUCE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Bringing up essays and treating them like they are equal to policy doesn't exactly scream relevance. There is a policy, it says "SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE sources" for a reason. Nothing else matters, period, whether you or I like it or not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you want that then go start your own blog/website or petition to have the rules changed. --
  Talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The General Notability Guideline says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Generally but not always. Dream Focus 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't going to do this. I was going to just let everyone go to GNG and read it themselves but since you decided to push it further I will now set the record straight. The actual wording of what you posted as "fact" from GNG says this, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." And if you dig further into what it means by "multiple sources" it means sources who tell different things about the subject. Sources who repeat the same information are not considered multiple sources. Sources that do not give the subject significant in-depth coverage are not relevant in regards to notability. If you have five books and they mostly tell the same things about the subject they are counted as ONE source. If you thousands of mentions within a source or sources they do not stack and do not count as significant coverage and so do not apply to notability. That's the measure by which every article and every subject is judged, period, end of discussion. --
  Talk) 15:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Which of these sources is significant independent coverage? Just listing off your hits on Google Books does not mean that where the subject "appears" establishs notability, that they aren't bare passing mentions like those currently in the article. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are a lot of mentions of him to sort through in all the search results. I added in some referenced information about him into the article. Dream Focus 06:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the coverage of him total is proof enough he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. They were still quoting him in a book published in 1925, 142 years after he died. [3] Dream Focus 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets
  WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - being mentioned lots of places doesn't equate with GNG. In-depth coverage does, of which there is none. It can be shown he existed, but fails
  WP:GNG, despite the addition of several more sources which are mere mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no rule of guideline that requires "in-depth" coverage. Only "significant". And significant means significant enough to indicate notability. If that sounds circular, you are correct, that is how it was designed. Significant coverage can be a single sentence, depending what the sentence says. Or, or it might be many single sentences across many sources. This is all a matter of opinion of course what is significant coverage. But "in-depth" is not a requirement for GNG. -- GreenC 03:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per 7&6=thirteen. Article is vastly improved. I would concur with Andrew that it is much easier to delete articles and move on than put the effort in to tie the string around others flowers and elevate a life from the vicissitude of the fates. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I fail to see how the article has been 'vastly improved'. The sources in the article are primary, passing, passing, primary, passing, seemingly passing, passing. And this book, the sole source that really contributes to GNG in any measure, has nothing to indicate it's reliable other than it "seeming" to be well researched-- it isn't published by a reputable publisher, and seems to be written by an amatuer historian. GNG doesn't ask for passing mentions and mentions in
  primary sources, but for coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" , and is both secondary and reliable. This has not been demonstrated. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete This one is hard. The subject gets a few paragraphs about himself in one source, and then some passing mentions.I couldn't find anything better in GB or GS. I thought about how to call it and in the end I was right in the middle of the fence. I was going to abstain but Eddie makes a good point above: the book George Washington's Kentucky Land is either self-published or published by some local publisher with little reputation, and the author is an amateur historian. This is just not good enough to make the subject, covered briefly in such a book, notable, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's probably significant enough, although more information would also be nice. Durindaljb (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is enough evidence here to show he meets
  WP:Basic Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Davidstewartharvey, could you list the sources you feel provide "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Because I've yet to see them. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The article has enough references based on this principle of

WP:Basic Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

* COMMENT - BOOM! Finally someone posts it. I've been waiting for it, but didn't expect it to come with possibly the greatest "be careful what you wish for" moment ever. He literally asked for it! Wow Davidstewartharvey you are my new hero. Look how much ink was spilled over "multiple SigCov, blah, blah" first. Its the very first subject specific PEOPLE section! This surgeon was a people right? yep, check. Deleteopedia (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only source that has been found that actually gives significant coverage on the individual, George Washington's Kentucky Land appears to have been self-published - at the very least, I can find absolutely no other mention of its publisher, "Lake Orion Book ≥Distributors≥≥" in any other context aside from this single book. In addition, there is nothing I can find that shows that the author could be considered an expert in the field. Thus, that source can not be considered a Reliable Source at all. Every other source that has been brought up since this AFD started is, as Eddie already mentioned, just very passing mention that does little more than establish that he existed. When the only actual source that provides any semblance of a claim to notability is, itself, a non-reliable source, the individual simply cannot be considered to have passed the
  WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2021 (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.