Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Peter Kirby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterkingiron (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 21 January 2024 (→‎David Peter Kirby). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

David Peter Kirby

David Peter Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author failing GNG. Can find no significant coverage of this individual; at most he is mentioned in book reviews. The article relies on a basic directory entry and a vague link to the entire University of Leicester website because some of his books are there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails general notability Mr Vili talk 00:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that there are more than 3 NBOOK passes here but I have seen enough to be very comfortable with NAUTHOR. Kirby appears to have been a prolific and respected historian. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, when I went to de-orphan the article, I also found that Wikipedia name-checks D. P. Kirby 94 times in articles... I know that's not an official notability criteria or anything but reinforces my sense that his writing has been influential and wiki readers will find it useful to have an article about him (hopefully, a more thorough one eventually). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a stub which needs expansion, but it is about a respected historian of Early Medieval Britain and it is well referenced. I have two of his books and cite them in articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above, subject meets NAUTHOR. ResonantDistortion 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a professor in a UK university, he should be notable without more. He is (or was) certainly a significant scholar in his field. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]