Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wayne (historian)

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The result was keep with a side of nom withdrawn, but would have been kept anyway per sourcing IDed during the discussion. Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wayne (historian)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Canada. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing showing notability. Nothing suggests he passes any of the prongs to being a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading this, I have to ask, did you click on find sources, scholar above? Because if you did there are a lot of things that suggest that. Jacona (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure that "BLP with no working references" is a great rationale for deletion when Google finds several sources immediately. A brief University of Toronto bio still exists, though he's now retired: [1]. There's also [2] which confirms his family history and the novel. His book The Reshaping of Plantation Society: The Natchez District, 1860-80 has 150 citations in Google Scholar; there will undoubtedly be reviews for this and probably his other two academic books. There are also 61 citations for a 1995 paper which looks to be the same Michael Wayne. Book reviews: Imagining Black America JSTOR 43663590; Death of an Overseer JSTOR 30039946, JSTOR 2700822, doi:10.1086/531379; Reshaping of Plantation Society JSTOR 23521672, JSTOR 24419754, JSTOR 2208749, JSTOR 1862715, JSTOR 3114555, JSTOR 203614, JSTOR 2702471, JSTOR 4232369, JSTOR 26475057, JSTOR 1903540, JSTOR 3742400, JSTOR 40581124. Book award: JSTOR 3115051 Espresso Addict (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about living people must have at least one working reference. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before voting, one should click on the "scholar" link within "find sources" above. He's published a lot of books and journal articles. Some of these have been cited, including this [3] with 150 cites. That goes along way to meeting [[WP:NSCHOLAR]. But the trump card is that he is a senior fellow. That meets NSCHOLAR item 3. So, this should be an obvious Keep. A few references are now in the article.Jacona (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona He's a senior fellow of University College, not the Royal Society of Canada. That's not a WP:NPROF#3 pass. But he is clearly notable via book reviews, as Espresso Addict has shown. -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction…affirming my !k, meets several notability guidelines including WP:NPROF, NAUTHOR. Jacona (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Espresso Addict has given a very clear demonstration of a WP:NAUTHOR pass. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 20 May 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.