Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Colbatch (apothecary)

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 speedy keep. WP:SK 1. No deletion rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Colbatch (apothecary)

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those searches are for "John Colbatch (apothecary)" (with quotes), so they only find those three words in that order, and not "Colbatch, John", "Colbatch, J.", "John Colbatch, physician" etc. Other than the Munk's roll and Dispensary reference given in the article, Colbatch appears in many sources. For example:

Mentioned in http://herbalsimples.com/mistletoe.htm
Listed in Strype's Survey: http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/strype/TransformServlet?page=book1_131
Mentioned contemporaneously in s:en:Of the Gout by William Stukeley
Subject of a 1990 paper in Annals of Science http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2213/1/2213.pdf
Mentioned (as "famous") in http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557718
Mentioned (as "well-known") in a history of Westminster Hospital http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843324/pdf/brmedj02533-0060.pdf
Entry in Oxford DNB http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/5/101005833/
2003 Royal Society paper mentions him http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/57/3/273.full.pdf
One of his books is available for sale here, 300 years later http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781170616079
Subject of this examination of his work: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3488125
17 works at Open Library http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL4770999A/Colbatch_John_Sir

Colbatch is clearly a well-know physician of the 18th century, a evidenced by a large corpus of works, listed in multiple biographical lists or works, many contemporaneous, extemporaneous and current references, books still for sale, and academic papers written on him even in the last decade.

Perhaps people suggesting article deletion could do a proper search and check the templates they are using for justification yield sane results, and at least try to find related material before filing an AfD? Inductiveload (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No deletion rationale specified by nominator. Seriously, if one is going to wield the deletion axe, one should do it properly. Throwing stuff at the wall without comment to see what sticks is not the way to go about it. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no rationale for deletion is provided. The subject seems to be notable enough and the article is referenced, based on public domain text. We should not make wild guesses on the rationales for deletion - it is the nominator's job Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2011 (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.