Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. N. Chattin Carlton

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 delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. N. Chattin Carlton

[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)

Extent of notability unclear Mooonswimmer 22:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Connecticut. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Curbon7 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing to justify an article is not there, and his career does not meet any of the prongs of notability for academics. Heads of libraries can be notable for such, or for their work as a librarian, or as a scholar more generally, but to show that we would need better sources than we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant list of publications, notability is clearly established. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play devil's advocate. Which of these are significant and how?
The following are reprintings of speeches or very short works, including catalogs of collections.
- The Arrangement and Use of Documents (without Cataloguing) in a Depository Library. Hartford, Connecticut, 1909.: 32 leaves. Short. Revision of a paper read. Not significant.
- The Catalogue of the E.D. Church Collection. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 1912.: 5 pages. Even shorter. A cataloging of a collection is not significant; this probably doesn't even belong in a Wikipedia article, even if it was published.
- Henry Edwards Huntington, 1850-1927: An Appreciation. New York: American Collector, 1927: 20 pages. Short.
- Notes on the Bridgewater House Library. New York: Priv. Print., 1918.: 20 pages. You can read them here. Short.
- Superstructures. New York Public Library, 1918.: 13 pages. Short. "An address delivered at the commencement exercises of the Library school, the New York public library, June 7, 1918... Reprinted ... from the Bulletin of the New York public library of June 1918." Not significant.
- The Kilmarnock Burns, 1786. New York: G.D. Smith Book Co., 1927.: 7 pages with illustrations. Short.
2 books:
- Charles Jeremy Hoadly, LL.D.: A Memoir. Hartford, Connecticut: Acorn Club, 1902.: 54 pages: Short. More significant for the subject than for the author, but sure, it's a book.
- Pauline: Favourite Sister of Napoleon. New York & London, 1930.: WorldCat has little on this one. It may be 300 pages, according to Google. Not sure of its significance or the significance of the other book--reviews, etc.
So why do you say "significant list of publications, notability is clearly established"? I'm about to vote delete but I'll change my vote if you can shed enough light. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG or author notability. Carlton's era was a good time for WASP males in academia, history, genealogy, and librarianship. They did research, they wrote books, they gave presentations, and they had their speeches, their cataloging, and sometimes the occasional books published somewhere and some of those documents are cataloged in archives. Some of those documents are now in the public domain and have been digitized and are held by multiple institutions now. But just because they were part of social or even scholarly clubs doesn't make them notable (note the article history: it was created by someone creating articles for multiple members of a club). This article has nothing that indicates notability and I am not finding an obituary on newspapers.com. I would expect to find such for a director of Newberry Library, so I'm afraid it's delete unless someone can show me something. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article creator added 2 obit listings in the references section and some information apparently from those obits. I tracked down the obituaries on newspapers.com and linked them in the article. (Issues with initials and multiple names going on in my first search.) I have removed a deadlink, cited these obituaries properly, fixed up the order, and clarified that most of his works were papers adapted from presentations he gave or bibliographies he created. These do not help his notability. If someone finds out that what appears to be his sole full-length book, on Napoleon's sister, got some press back in the day, please add some reviews to the article. With a whopping 3 holdings in WorldCat, I'm not optimistic it made too big of waves, but who knows? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious -- His achievements are largely in atchival cataloguing. I do not think this is enough to constitute notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage seems dubious and sparse at best. Should be recreated in draft first if someone things they can improve. On current basis, delete. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:50, 19 June 2022 (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.