Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Slobodian


 * 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 WP:SNOW Keep. (non-admin closure) &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Quinn Slobodian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. A loose noose (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs updating and improvement, but Slobodian's work is widely reviewed, making him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. For example, Globalists was reviewed in The New Republic, Dissent , Areo , The American Historical Review , etc. Foreign Front was reviewed in Journal for the Study of Radicalism , Journal of Contemporary History , etc. Again, article definitely needs to be improved, but there's no problem here that deletion solves. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought about nominating this for deletion myself, as the subject doesn't pass WP:NPROF; however, I'm persuaded that he would pass WP:AUTHOR, as his 2018 book in particular has been the subject of several substantial reviews in relevant publications. Unless we're saying that academics have to pass WP:NPROF in addition to other criteria, I think this is a keep. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree the subject is a probably a bit WP:TOOSOON for NPROF, however he does seem to pass NAUTHOR. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Girth Summit, was ready to vote delete as per WP:NACADEMIC, but the book reviews make me change due to WP:NAUTHOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep. JSTOR shows this historian's books getting multiple reviews.  This nomination seems to be a failure to perform routine WP:BEFORE search for notability of an academic historian who has published multiple books.  Sails past WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 18 February 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.