Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh F. Blunt

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh F. Blunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I don't think he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No hard evidence of the same has been presented, anyway. There is a long list of "additional sources" that aren't reflected in the text of the article, and I take it with a grain of salt, given that there are almost as many as there are sentences in the article. WP still isn't a memorial, and there is no evidence the subject meets WP:AUTHOR either. (So he purportedly has works still in print. *I* have that much, and I don't qualify for an article either.) Ravenswing 19:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It seems he's more known as Tip O'Neill's childhood priest than as an author. A Google Search returns almost nothing of value, an I can't imagine that the sourced books are anything more than just passing mentions considering most seem to be either bios of O'Neill or lists of Catholic authors. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Worldcat shows he has 2200 library holdings here which is significant, he also has been published by major publishers and received several national awards. I don't see this as a memorial as he died in 1957. There are plenty of reviews referenced in the article so there is a clear pass of WP:GNG. The reviews and other references were added on 1 August after the above votes were made, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Hi, do you think he passes WP:GNG now with the many extra references that have been added to the article? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really impressive amount of work, user:Atlantic306. I think I'm convinced. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as improved. BD2412 T 21:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this now appears to pass both GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2021 (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.