Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David H. Kelley

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The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn). Carcharoth 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Kelley

~~Unreferenced stub article on a Canadian archaeologist and genalogist. No independent evidence of notability.~~ BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: sources now added clearly identify Kelley a leading contributor in his field. And it's snowing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that being a Professor Emeritus (which is easily verifiable[1]) he is quite obviously notable. References are included as links to papers written by him (his bibliography includes papers published in American Antiquity, Current Anthropology, American Anthropologist and many other top of the line journals, through 4 decades). And the notability of his contributions to mesoamericanist studies are outlined - althpugh grantedly not prefixed with the phrase "He is notable because ...". I think this AfD is nealy baseless.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Deor 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar and Google books searches show multiple significant publications in journals and books. Seems to have been a quite important scholar in the field of Mayan language in his day. Deor 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Big guy in Mayan studies. Specifically, in deciphering the Mayan script which was a great mystery until the mid-late 20th century. I don't know about his later genealogical efforts but he's one of the major Mayan script scholars. --lquilter 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Sppedy Keep Good grief. We have countless articles on marginally notable comic book characters and low selling music albums, but someone goes on a witch-hunt against a true scholar who is quite notable. Please save AfD for the garbage subjects, of which there are plenty. Decoratrix 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from independent reliable sources are provided to omply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to provide citations here and now in an AFD. The article describes his reasons for notability already. Per WP:ATD, tagging an article or sources {{verify}} is preferred ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. ... {{verify}}"). --lquilter 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to be clearly regarded as an expert on Maya writing. Along with the Google scholar results mentioned already, his book "Deciphering the Maya Script" has attracted multiple reviews from J. Latin American Studies, Hispanic American Historical Review, and Latin American Research Review. —David Eppstein 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Brittanica thinks he's notable enough to cite, though I had to use the Google cache as the link doesn't exist any more. Corvus cornix 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as others have noted Kelley was one of the earliest and pre-eminent promoters of the (ultimately successful) phonetic approach to Maya script decipherment, and the significance of his contribs in this regard are documented at some length in leading works on the subject, such as by George Stuart and particularly in Coe's Breaking the Maya Code. His glyph readings (such as identifying the name of K'ak'upakal in Chichen Itza's inscriptions) were among the first to be validated and helped 'turn the tide', so to speak. Even discounting his influence on Maya epigraphy, his academic career spanning about half a century would likely be notable in its own right. His speculative investigations into diffusionist contact theories are likewise notably commented upon in secondary publications, despite (or even, because of) their unconventional approach and the annoyance among other academics they caused at the time. It was perhaps remiss not to have set out the refs and notability claims more explicitly before now; have begun to add the appropriate and verifiable refs and over the next couple of days will look to work them into an expanded text, which hopefully will make his notability claim that much clearer. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:55, 9 November 2007 (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.