Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850


 * 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. Michig (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since the only apparent media reference is to the fact that something is not in this book, I do not see thebasis of notability  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Changed to Keep given those sources. I didn't look on JSTOR but should've. Delete – Absolutely nothing to be found in my searches save two passing mentions with no relevance whatsoever to practically anything. The author doesn't have an article, furthering the case for deletion and eliminating the redirect and merge options. References on the article lead nowhere save one of the passing mentions.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, "Absolutely nothing to be found in my searches", well i found some reviews (see below), and "The author doesn't have an article, furthering the case for deletion...", no it doesn't, wikipedia does not have to have an author article for one or more of their works to be notable enough for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews including, in William and Mary Quarterly - here, The New England Quarterly - here, The American Historical Review - here, The Journal of American History - here, The Journal of Economic History - here, Australasian Journal of American Studies - here, Technology and Culture - here, Reviews in American History - here, The Economic History Review - listed here, Journal of the Early Republic - listed here, also, it won the 1995 John H. Dunning Prize, and the 1994-95 Louis Gottschalk Prize presented by American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies mention her, btw The Globe and Mail obit of vickers mentions the Good Will Hunting item here. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I found 1 and 2 within 30 seconds but I see Coolabahapple got there before me. On the subject of before, WP:BEFORE states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.".--Pontificalibus 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the clear-cut examples found by Coolabahapple - notability very clearly established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per sources. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources are more than sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please close with snowball keep. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2019 (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.