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. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Although the article does not look updated, I'm having trouble finding relevant sources that would augment the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment His record as a researcher is not strong. If the publications listed in the article are his only ones, it's unsurprising that I've not found any substantial coverage of him online. However, there are these two reviews of his book: [1] and [2]. One is in the Yearbook of English Studies, the other in the Sixteenth Century Journal. This means that the subject satisfies Criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR. It is still true that almost nothing can be verifiably said about him and so, given that NAUTHOR is a gauge for a subject's level of coverage, I'm still undecided as to whether this should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I found one more review in the Sewanee Review [3], for what it's worth. We may be missing some reviews, but so far this looks a bit on the weak side. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability as an author or scholar of the humanities requires more than one not-very-importsant book. His edition of Spenser's minor poems is, contrary to what the article says, not the standard edition, its a 1997 ed. by a very minor academic publisher --worldcat shows only 17 libraries. (the most recent standard academic edition is The Yale edition of the shorter poems of Edmund Spenser ed. William A Oram, ISBN 78030004245 , in many hundreds of libraries. ; there are numerous other complete editions from academic presses that are much more important than this one). DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per DGG's analysis that shows he does not meet our academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG's analysis and fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:11, 23 January 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.