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) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome F. Keating (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)

The subject of the article lacks the widespread coverage in independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG. He is best known for a blog, but there is very limited coverage of that in any significant sources.  GuardianH  05:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Transportation, Taiwan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found a few reviews of his books [1] [2] [3] [4], but I'm not convinced they're enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. A couple of them are also in the Taipei Times, which is an outlet that the subject apparently regularly writes op-eds for, so that probably makes them slightly less than fully independent. I could be convinced to keep if there are better quality reviews of his books out there though. MCE89 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not fully convinced by the additional sources presented by Cunard. Source (3) ends with "please book tickets from the Friends of Taiwan Association. Tickets are NT$50 and VIP tickets are NT$100. Please call 626-839-2512 or 562-404-3798". It clearly reads much more like an ad for his speech than independent coverage. And source (2), which seems to have been written by the CNA and republished by The Commons Daily, is basically just a repackaging of the VoA article. But the VoA article found by Cunard plus the book reviews above are enough to tip it into a weak WP:NAUTHOR pass for me. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. "久居台湾美国人著书台湾民主历史" [Long-time American resident in Taiwan writes book on Taiwan's democratic history] (in Chinese). Voice of America. 2007-08-14. Archived from the original on 2025-03-02. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

     The article notes: "祈夫润博士在台湾居住19年后写了两本有关台湾民主历史的书。他说，美国应该为近代台湾民主的曲折过程负责。祈夫润博士英文原名是Jerome Keating。他1988年到台北捷运担任技术转移经理，之后在台北大学任职副教授，还娶了台湾女子黄瑞娟为妻，成了英文报章的政治评论员，出版了两本有关台湾民主历史的书。日前，他应美国南加州台湾会馆、台湾之友、福尔摩莎基金会邀请，讲述2008年台湾大选的议题。身穿1895年的黄虎旗T恤，祈夫润说，虽然有人因为这是代表清朝而不喜欢，但是他认为，这是台湾人抗日要自主的象征。他也推崇被称为“台湾文学之父”的赖和对虎旗赞美的诗作。在那个时代赖和用白话文写作，而且用民族主义来对抗日本。"

     From Google Translate: "Dr. Keating has written two books on the history of Taiwan's democracy after living in Taiwan for 19 years. He said that the United States should be held responsible for the tortuous process of Taiwan's democracy in modern times. Dr. Keating's original English name is Jerome Keating. He went to Taipei MRT in 1988 as a technology transfer manager, and later worked as an associate professor at Taipei University. He also married a Taiwanese woman, Huang Ruijuan, and became a political commentator for English newspapers. He published two books on the history of Taiwan's democracy. Recently, he was invited by the Southern California Taiwan Association, Friends of Taiwan, and Formosa Foundation to talk about the issues of the 2008 Taiwan election. Wearing a yellow tiger flag T-shirt from 1895, Keating said that although some people do not like it because it represents the Qing Dynasty, he believes that it is a symbol of Taiwanese people's resistance to Japan and independence. He also admires Lai He, who is known as the "Father of Taiwanese Literature", for his poems praising the tiger flag. In that era, Lai He wrote in vernacular Chinese and used nationalism to fight against Japan."

  2. "美學者：台灣保住民主就是獨立" [American Scholar: Taiwan's Preservation of Democracy Equals Independence]. The Commons Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2007-08-15. p. A4.

     The article notes: "曾在台北大學任教的美籍人士祈夫潤（Jerome Keating）博士近日在美國發表談話，高度讚揚台灣的民主，並說「台灣能保住民主就是獨立」。祈夫潤於1988年到台北捷運擔任技術轉移經理，其後在台北大學任職副教授，並成為英文報章的政治評論員，先後出版了兩本有關台灣民主歷史的書。日前，他應美國南加州台灣會館、台灣之友、福爾摩沙基金會邀請，以2008年台灣總統選舉議題發表談話。"

     From Google Translate: "Dr. Jerome Keating, an American who once taught at Taipei University, recently gave a speech in the United States, highly praising Taiwan's democracy and saying that "Taiwan can be independent if it can preserve its democracy." Jerome Keating joined the Taipei Metro as a technology transfer manager in 1988, and later worked as an associate professor at Taipei University. He also became a political commentator for an English newspaper and published two books on Taiwan's democratic history. Recently, he was invited by the Taiwan Association of Southern California, Friends of Taiwan, and the Formosa Foundation to give a speech on the topic of the 2008 Taiwan presidential election."

  3. Yang, Ting 楊婷 (2014-10-03). "台灣之友會邀請祈夫潤主講" [Friends of Taiwan Association invites Jerome F. Keating to give a lecture]. Zhong Guo Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-02. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

     The article notes: "祈夫潤旅居台灣多年，曾任台北及高雄捷運技術轉移經理，並在台北大學任教後退休，他長期觀察亞洲脈動，為台灣民主寫過4本著作的資歷，解析變動中的台灣。他著作之一「台灣下一場大規模的示威該是什麼」預言，在台灣通往真正民主的道路，最明顯的障礙是「不公平的競爭」，"

     From Google Translate: "Jerome F. Keating has lived in Taiwan for many years. He has served as the technology transfer manager for the Taipei and Kaohsiung Metro and taught at Taipei University before retiring. He has long observed the pulse of Asia and has written four books on Taiwan's democracy, analyzing the changing Taiwan. One of his books, "What will be the next large-scale demonstration in Taiwan?" predicts that the most obvious obstacle on Taiwan's path to true democracy is "unfair competition.""

  4. Liu, Kwangyin (2012-03-31). "Mapping Taiwan: A journey through history". Taiwan Today. Archived from the original on 2025-03-02. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

     The article notes: "For Jerome F. Keating, a U.S.-born academic, documenting the island’s history through the cartographic lens is a labor of love that has finally reached fruition. In “The Mapping of Taiwan: Desired Economies, Coveted Geographies,” Keating tells a tale of imperial and mercantile ambition using a collection of antique maps largely supplied by Taipei-based SMC Publishing Inc. ... Keating, who came to Taiwan from Dallas, Texas, in 1988 on contract with Taipei Mass Rapid Transit Corp., quickly fell in love with the island and has called it home ever since. A recognized Taiwan advocate and political commentator, he readily admits to facing a steep learning curve during his early days in country."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jerome F. Keating (traditional Chinese: 祈夫潤; simplified Chinese: 祈夫润) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of these are passing (e.g., trivial) mentions that are mostly introductions, they still do not contribute to notability. Significant secondary and independent coverage means multiple sources dedicated entirely to the coverage of Keating. That isn't the case here.  GuardianH  01:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

I consider the sources to "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" so meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the notability guideline.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." The combination of the the coverage about Keating in multiple sources demonstrates he is notable.

Cunard (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant secondary and independent coverage means multiple sources dedicated entirely to the coverage of Keating." no it doesn't you are comically wrong... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject clearly passes WP:GNG, reviews of books count as signficant coverage of the author. OP seems to be misinterpreting "widespread" to mean something other than the three or more pieces of signicant coverage we normally count. I would also question the contention that he is best known for his blog, I'm not seeing that reflected in the WP:RS who seem to hold that he is notable for his writing other than his blog... Especially as the article doesn't even mention his blog... So where is that claim coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. MCE89's reviews and Cunard's list of additional sources are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The nominator's claims that GNG requires widespread coverage and that its sources should be entirely about the subject are both false. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2025 (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.