Talk:John E. Warriner

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

notability

To editor Melchior2006: Please establish a claim to notability as the subject seems to fail NAUTHOR, ANYBIO, and GNG. I'll wait for a couple days but you can expect a nomination for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Chris troutman: Warriner is one of the most famous authorities on composition in the English language in the 20th century. You must have overlooked the reference to the obituary in the New York Times, which mentions that his books reached more than 30 million copies in print. Is there a misunderstanding here somewhere? --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the obit in the NYT is a slam-dunk for notability. Neither "most famous authorities on composition in the English language in the 20th century" nor "books reached more than 30 million copies in print" seems to qualify for WP:NAUTHOR. We can always have a deletion discussion about it if you prefer. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Chris troutman: Schuster wrote in 2003, after Warriner had been dead for 16 years: "Warriner is the name both of a person and an institution." For education professionals, students, and editors, the name John E. Warriner is comparabale to Walter Cronkite. Have you tried googling the name? You will find thousands of mentions. --Melchior2006 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GHITS. I started this thread out of respect for you just to give warning about notability concerns. Wikipedia often gets fans of this thing or that and insist that the subject is really notable but when us dilettantes compare the coverage against WP:N, the subject fails. I'm in no rush but this article is in the NPP queue and I intend to get points from it. You can scramble to fix this article per WP:REALPROBLEM or I can start a deletion conversation. If you're right, the aggregate will agree with you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How the editor of school textbooks that sold 30 million copies and shaped English instruction in American schools over decades can be dismissed as "highly specialized" (WP:GHITS) is beyond me. I don't think we will come to a consensus on this one, so pls do go ahead and start the deletion discussion. --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite. WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since that is clearly the case here, the burden of overcoming the presumption of notability lies with the editor disputing it. In other words, you must explain why, in your view, the subject is not notable. Reference to GHITS is a red herring. This essay does not provide free license to overcome the policy presumption of notability by fiat, especially when no one has even mentioned Google hits. Finally, quoting from WP:NAUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Tito Omburo (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources tag

I removed the tag because now most of the sources are academic journals and major newspapers. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]