Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rubinstein (social 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. Courcelles 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

David Rubinstein (social historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not finding any coverage out there for this historian. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep. This nominator, as usual, has not looked very hard. On Google Scholar I find publications in the area of social history for "David Rubinstein" of 59, 48, 33, 31, 30, 26, 22, 22, 20, 20, 18...... Comments from scholars in the area would be helpful, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Papers that the subject wrote are not coverage of the subject. Gigs (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the papers that he wrote, but the citations to those papers, i.e. other people recognising his contribution to his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Recognition is not coverage either. We can't write an article based on recognition. Gigs (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: To my mind this is a clear keep - a well published social historian - formerly a full time academic. I think he used to be head of dept in Hull. His books (| google books helps) seem enough evidence of notability and I think authors and academics may be notable via their work. (20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC))(Msrasnw (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep This guy has written some 20 books including some very important ones - see e.g. these on education  He is still producing (in his 80s!) - e.g. on Quakers and the 1st World War in this month's Quaker History Journal Aa42john (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.