Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rickard William Lloyd

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard William Lloyd

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

I'm not sure meets criteria for WP:GNG. If he wrote two books that are un-noteworthy, does that warrant a need for an encyclopedia article? Otherwise, the article is an obituary, already publised elsewhere, 80 yrs ago. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in Who's Who indicates notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJT21 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2014

- Sorry, but how so? Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Notes point # 5, a Who's Who entry does not prove notability —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That note refers to Marquis Who's Who, an entirely different publication from Who's Who (UK) (and Who Was Who), which doesn't accept self-nominations. Qwfp (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do all 33,000 Britons listed listed in Who's Who (UK) have/need WP articles? I'm not arguing, just asking the question... —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Clearly they don't all have WP articles at present, and I don't believe WP's coverage of UK people in any sense needs all of them to have WP articles. Nor do I believe having an entry in Who's Who should be sufficient to survive AfD. But I think it's an indicator of notability that can contribute, along with others. Qwfp (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have always accepted, for example that an obit in the NYT is conclusive proof of notability. A & C Black's Who's Who belongs in the same category. It is very unlikely that the professional biographers of that publication would make a mistake about who is and isn't notable. James500 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BMJ and Who Was Who are both independent, reliable sources, so meets WP:GNG. (I notice the nominator also added a tag to the page about possible WP:Conflict of interest, but the origin of this concern is not obvious to me.) Qwfp (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag deleted. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 10:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rickard William Lloyd was a pioneering anaesthetist before it became the relatively 'unexceptional' role it is perceived as today MJT21 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. To use MJT21's word - unexceptional. Delete Bristolbottom (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. User:Bristolbottom seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.41 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not against using Who's Who to bolster notability, but it's not sufficient. I found his obit in BMJ, plus three articles (one of which is listed on the article but only by the title -- tsk tsk):

Dr. Rickard William Lloyd (this would be the obit) The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3777 (May 27, 1933), p. 940

The Field Of View Of The Anaesthetist Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2198 (Feb. 14, 1903), pp. 401-402

Slow Heart Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3357 (May 2, 1925), p. 860

Fatal Collapse After Extirpation Of Kidney Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2642 (Aug. 19, 1911), pp. 409-410

The obit should yield some good information, but I do not have access to JSTOR, so I put these out there and hope that someone with better access can get to it and add to the article. Other than that, I found nothing other than the metadata for his book, but I can't find a digital copy (hoping for a nice intro with bio information). LaMona (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2014 (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.