Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufus Hollis Gause

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Hollis Gause

[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)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBIO - no evidence of significant awards, historical importance, or indeed any meaningful coverage in independent secondary sources related to his work. Of four sources in the article, one is his own author page at Barnes and Noble, one is his co-written book, and two are obituaries of him in fairly small publications. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Struck following User:Jahaza's find of a Festschrift below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't find reviews of his books, only obituaries and funeral home notices. Doesn't meet AUTHOR or GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep There's a festschrift published by Brill[1], which may satisfy WP:NACADEMIC, 1c. Jahaza (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it does. Brill is certainly not a vanity press, so WP:NACADEMIC applies. I've stricken through my original comment, though I'm not sure I really have the authority to roll back the whole process given that others have now commented. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACADEMIC 1 (c). Although the nominator has withdrawn a speedy close is not applicable as there is still one delete vote by @Oaktree b:, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree it passes now, as explained. Keep per ACADEMIC. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2023 (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.