Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Durusau

Patrick Durusau

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [1], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [2] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [3]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and poorly sourced article. May be better to rework this in draftsapce if it can be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Ars Technica source is a green reliable source and should be sufficient for this article to be kept. There is a self source which would not be enough, and then there are a few others, but with the green reliable source and others, on net, this article is a Keep in my evaluation. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a deletion discussion about a person, and yet so far the discussion has not come to a consensus about this person, and has instead determined that a book they wrote - which does not currently have an article - is notable (noting here that the arguments for keeping that have been presented are all about the book, and do not establish notability for the author). The AfD closer cannot be responsible for implementing such a reframing, and it isn't reasonable to move what is patently a biography to a title about a book without reframing. As such, this currently looks like a "delete" outcome - I'm relisting for one more week in the hope that someone will do something to avoid such a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was not considering notability from the perspective of WP:NBOOK but if anything WP:AUTHOR, the BLPs consensus is leaning if anything towards a Keep if I were to look at it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said in my !vote, the book reviews are enough to establish notability under WP:NBOOK or under WP:NAUTHOR (specifically criteria 3, which says that an individual who created a significant and notable work can themselves be considered notable). With authors who have written a single notable book, it's obviously a common outcome to prefer having an article about the book rather than about the author, since having both is typically redundant. But the sources that establish WP:NBOOK notability here also establish WP:NAUTHOR notability, and as the nominator here said themselves, there is value to retaining the article history. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this article on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR, and a discussion can be had outside of AfD about whether or not to reframe it to be about the book. MCE89 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]