Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Anthony May


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Anthony May
Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. No significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not a notable subject. Only alleged claim of notability is the subject’s own publisher, a claim that is itself unsourced. (Where exactly did the publisher make this claim?) Article contains many unsourced claims with “citation needed” added by subsequent editors. About half of the article is simply a list of the books the subject has written, with no claim of the notability of said books. —- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Anthony May Stats )


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have cited one review of each of the books listed. Plenty more such sources are available from searches such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, May's books are "well known" (reflected by number of holdings in libraries), and have been reviewed by multiple sources (each meet WP:NBOOK, and are wikinotable for their own standalone articles) ie.
 * Social Engineering in the Philippines (in around 300 libraries) - The American Historical Review (here), The Journal of Asian Studies (here), Pacific Historical Review (here), The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (here);
 * Sonny Montes and Mexican American activism in Oregon (140 libraries) - a 2012 Oregon Book Award finalist - Pacific Historical Review (here), Oregon Historical Quarterly (here), Western Historical Quarterly (listed here);
 * Inventing a Hero (99 libraries) - Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), The American Historical Review (here), CNN Philippines (here), Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints (here);
 * Battle for Batangas (480 libraries) - The Journal of Asian Studies (here), Pacific Affairs (here), Pacific Historical Review (here), The International History Review (here), The American Historical Review (here), Canadian Journal of History (here), American Studies (here), Asian Affairs (here);
 * A Past Recovered (65 libraries) - Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), Asian Studies Review (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep -- If for no other reason than that his view of a Filipino national hero is controversial. I would however have preferred to see links to the books rather than to reviews of them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not. Reviews are independent reliable sources. Links to the books themselves are marketing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying to this, David. I was wondering how to reply to such a bizarre suggestion from an experienced editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 28 December 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.