Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Larkin
=[[Maurice Larkin]]=
:{{la|Maurice Larkin}} – (
:({{Find sources|Maurice Larkin}})
Fails GNG. A search of the Google News archives only brings up obituaries for this person. Lengthy precedent has established that obituaries alone are not enough to satisfy the "Significiant Coverage" portion of the GNG. Fails WP:PROF as well. We need more than an obituary and a university website. A notable academic would be covered in the news or in scholarly sources. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I wrote the stub because I think he passes WP:PROF. For starters, most profs do no get lengthy obituaries in high-circulation newspapers (but Larkin got one); that disproves your WP:GNG theory. Arguably he passes PROF #1 with three of his works: his PhD thesis got published as a book and was also translated. The Independent obit says it "is still the standard account of the subject" (presumably in the English literature though). His last two books each had a 2nd edition. He also passes the rather format test #5 (named chair) and #3 as Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (the latter is not as distinguishes as a FRS, but adds to his formal recognition in the field.) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:: An obituary doesn't satisfy the GNG. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::: It does. Anyway, it passes PROF for the reasons I enumerated above. And if you are suspicious about the high level of praise in that obit, rest assured that the opinion about his 1st book I mentioned is reflected elsewhere. [http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/cdtr/pdf/IssuesCompDemSecSyllabus.pdf]: "A classic on French history of secularism is Maurice Larkin, Church and State after the Dreyfus Affair: The Separation Issue in France (1973)." So it's not just one journalist's opinion. And for his penultimate book, the publisher quotes a snippet from an American Historical Review (of the first edition) [http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/France/?view=usa&ci=9780198731511] "there is no equivalent work in English or French that covers the history of France during the last fifty years with such depth and originality". I was actually quite conservative in not adding any lavish praise to this article lest I be accused of "spam by stealth" or other wikijargon du jour. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Snow Keep adding to the above: For historians and others in the humanities it is always advisable to check scholarship in the form of books and their institutional holdings. Larkin's output/impact were obviously tremendous, with holdings statistics from WorldCat: Man and society [http://www.worldcat.org/title/man-and-society-in-nineteenth-century-realism-determinism-and-literature/oclc/2680873&referer=brief_results 916], France since the Popular Front [http://www.worldcat.org/title/france-since-the-popular-front-government-and-people-1936-1986/oclc/17483136&referer=brief_results 790], Church and state after the Dreyfus affair [http://www.worldcat.org/title/church-and-state-after-the-dreyfus-affair-the-separation-issue-in-france/oclc/866899&referer=brief_results 701], Religion, politics, and preferment in France since 1890 [http://www.worldcat.org/title/religion-politics-and-preferment-in-france-since-1890-la-belle-epoque-and-its-legacy/oclc/30594213&referer=brief_results 395], ... These numbers show a conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1, entirely independent of GNG. Nom may wish to withdraw. Keeping this AfD open any longer will only be wasting time. Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC).
: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.