Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mace Ward

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 merge‎ to Priest, Politician, Collaborator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Mace Ward[edit]

[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)

I cam across this during new page patrol - it was a redirect until July 28. I prodded the article on August 21 because the person does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. I had some discussion with the original redirect creator on my talk page. But since the prod was removed no work has been done to show notability. I am putting it here so that the community can determine if the person is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Slovakia, and Rhode Island. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His book Priest, Politician, Collaborator is notable and is the subject of a Wikipedia article which includes several reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. His dissertation No saint: Jozef Tiso, 1887–1947 ISBN 9780549622673 may also be of interest. "No saint: Jozef Tiso, 1887–1947". uri-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 2023-08-30. Google Scholar lists several publications with some citations, but I don't know how good the citation numbers are for a historian or how relevant various metrics are. Perhaps the reception of his book and his journal articles is enough to pass notability as an author and as an academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge clear WP:NAUTHOR pass due to book reviews. In addition, the actual creator of the article hasn't been notified since it was written over a redirect. (t · c) buidhe 01:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Buidhe:. You were notified because you started the page as a redirect. And your comment that this was "written" is a stretch. It is a stub with 57 words and three words are his name and 13 are about the book. This book has an article which you also started (only 33 words so there is room) so your idea of a merge or original idea of redirect makes sense. If there is information to create a biography in the future it can be converted. Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please count the words once more. Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the notable book, our usual solution to someone with only one book but one that is notable. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF and I don't think one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ward's paper is mentioned in Wartime collaboration, I have added such information. So the reidirect is not enough.

If stubs are wrong, let's remove all of them, perhaps one million. Why this exactly?Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge where appropriate and redirect to Priest, Politician, Collaborator. I have to say I'm a bit confused with the "keep" !votes here. The subject, quite clearly in my opinion, fails NAUTHOR and NPROF and I haven't seen any evidence of where it could be improved to bring to that standard. - Skipple ☎ 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as is usual in the cases of an author with a single notable book. Clearly fails NPROF and NAUTHOR. Its WP:TOOEARLY for a full article on the author. --hroest 21:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm ok with the merge. TOOEARLY does seem to apply Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow. The article on the book is a short article, with more space devoted to references than to its text. It is useful to have something on the author of a notable work, but he has apparently done little other than write the book. I therefore wonder whether the better solution may be to keep this article but merge into it the article on the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2023 (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.