Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolph Ware

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Ware[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)

Subject appears to fall WP:NACADEMIC. Article is being targeted because of contraversial statements the subject made, but I'm unaware of anything else that notable about them. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and California. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eight published reviews of two books would normally be enough for a keep from me per WP:AUTHOR, but it's weak because one of the two (the one with fewer reviews) is a multi-editor edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Africa, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In agreement with David Eppstein and Johnbod. This scrapes over the line. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2024 (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.