Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Call Black
- 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. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Craig Call Black
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Craig Call Black (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)
Cannot see that this paleontologist and academic meets
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy Keep subject seems to satisfy multiple specific criteria for
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
]
Delete: As notindependent sources, and I could not find that this is satisfied. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Did your google book searches bring up books
.google .com /books /about /A _Review _of _the _North _American _Tertiary .html?id=N-yxNQAACAAJ,books .google .com /books /about /Papers _on _Fossil _Rodents _in _Honor _of _Alb .html?id=NeEaTzcyLqYC, and books .google .com /books /about /History _and _prehistory _of _the _Lubbock _La .html?id=j _MqAQAAIAAJ? I also get www .worldcat .org /title /new-pareumys-rodentia-cylindrodontidae-from-the-duchesne-river-formation-utah /oclc /211704 on world cat which appears to be a widely held title. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Did your google book searches bring up books
- Keep. Having an obituary in a publication of a professional organization is usually a clue that the academic is notable. The ftp site for that document was dead because the material had been moved, and the correct link is now in the article. According to the obit Black was elected a fellow of the Geological Society of America, meeting criteria #3 of WP:ACADEMIC. Finding published sources for influential curators and educators is difficult. Usually we have to rely on awards and elected society fellowships. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Speedy Keep (changed from above): I cringe sometimes when I see that AFD is not clean up. An argument that we should have articles written from obituaries (or accept them as clues because finding sources are difficult) is not likely one of the better ones I have seen for notability. That is why there is a sourcing requirements and not automatic or inherent notability. The searches I performed was on information I saw (or couldn't see because of a dead link) and was flawed. The sources added allow others to verify information and I was able to also find an author, William W. Korth, that referred to the subject (for example, see Black, 1965) more than once. What is shown now is far better than what looked like a memorial article written primarily from obituaries. To me the article surpasses "clues" of notability or "seems to satisfy..." comments and if User:Tacyarg agrees would likely allow for a "Speedy Keep". Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)]
- keep I'm by no means a subject matter expert on this topic, but the article seems to be well-sourced with material that passes the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)]
- 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.