Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Sweetman

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. Consensus is that the sources found by Wikicology are enough to demonstrate the subject should have a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Sweetman

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Low citations [1]. Note, started life as a copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. It seems the thing he is most noted for—writing a "warts and all" history book about a high school Article 1, Article 2—is not even really about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable because he is a leading Historian in his field which is New Zealand Irish and Catholic history.Dome1000 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dome1000: for sure that is significant, but do you have any references in reliable sources which define him as such? We need some kind of verification he meets the criteria at WP:Author. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal of him when someone suggests deleting one of his St Peter's Old Boys pages. Just make an unsupported assertion of importance. Don't worry about wether it can be verified, don't worry about wether it's true. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of the article meet WP:NAUTHOR [2]. I found Nzherald News, Otago Daily Times, Murray State University, This book, The Hibernian, The encyclopedia of New Zealand, New Zealand history, The Scotland Times and Manatu Taonga books to mention few. I remind the nominator that WP:BEFORE is important. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the links you posted? Only one is any good. A book review from New Zealand Herald. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep This minor historian in the very small field (Irish immigrants in New Zealand) fails WP:PROFESSOR. But mayjust squeak past WP:AUTHOR when you add the 2 respectful reviews of Fair and Just Solution to the popular coverage of a controversy surrounding the official history of the boy's school and his very minor presence on the lecture circuit as a speaker on Irish immigrants in New Zealand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable within Academic field in NZ, with reasonable national coverage given its focus NealeFamily (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2015 (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.