Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.H. Risley

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 per WP:SNOW. Nominated version was a poor stub but the current article is quality encyclopediac material. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

H.H. Risley

H.H. Risley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Orphaned stub article, subject lacks notability, doesn't assert importance ("did extensive work" isn't quite enough), fails WP:BIO. SkerHawx 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Doesn't even properly assert notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please do some due diligence before voting. At least a Google search. VFD means there are no references anywhere, not just in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Fails WP:BIO. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Risley performed the first ethnographic survey of India and his 1901 census continues to receive critical attention today. "The first systematic study of the classification of Indian races was undertaken by Sir Herbert Risley in 1901. In spite of its many lacunae it was regarded as a landmark in the study of the people of India." -- 2001 Census as Social Document. There are over 600 Google Books references for either "H.H. Risley" or "Herbert Risley" (as he was known after knighthood). --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Dhartung. Things before the Clinton administration still count for something, even here. Nick mallory 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• If he's notable enough for Britannica, he's notable enough for me as well. Keep (and probably rename to Herbert Hope Risley). - Mike Rosoft 09:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think Herbert Risley is best (the ODNB calls him that). Most of his life he was "H.H." (common for scholars of the era) but later became "Sir Herbert". His middle name almost never appears and his middle initial never (when addressed "Sir") unless in "H.H." --Dhartung | Talk 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I see assertion of notability - "landmark census", "was influential in". Bacchiad 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Let me quote from the lovely WP:NN: "Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability". Guess what, this article was adapted from the article on Herbert Risley from the 11th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica [1]. Article deletion nomination is getting horribly out of hand it seems. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am not charging bad faith; the nominated version was a weak stub. But I wish people would at least check a search engine, particularly for historical figures. --Dhartung | Talk 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I now see indeed that the article was first nominated here, then improved, but only then properly tagged for deletion. I missed the fact that the AfD tag was missing for a while. I've struck my remark. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Dhartung & Cpt. Morgan. If it's in Britannica it's notable.--Cube lurker 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. President of a Royal Institute should be enough to qualify him as an academic, I think. —David Eppstein 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If it didn't demonstrate notability before it was nominated, it sure as hell does now. Burntsauce 23:14, 5 October 2007 (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.