Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stedman (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 delete. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stedman (historian)

[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)

This article about a writer of history books has no footnotes and the external links are primary sources. Has been tagged as BLP unsourced since 2019. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any references to add, so do not think the subject meets notability criteria. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Pen and Sword is a significant publisher in the niche field of military history. He seems to have a significant output of such histories, mainly related to WWI. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree he has written a number of books on his field, but just because someone has written a stack of books does not make them inherently notable. We need some independent RS that indicates notability, and there is none in the article. He *may* be notable, but there is nothing here that says he is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure Pen & Sword is such a big deal, it doesn't seem to be an academic publisher and I've seen its books range from reliable down to questionable. That hardly matters here, though, since we appear to be severely lacking in independent sources for this BLP. Avilich (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Pen and sword are okayish I think. They are perhaps a bit better than Osprey publishing, they publish niche military books, I don't think they pay the authors much.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just publishing books is not enough. We do not have the reliable secondary sources about him that need to be the backbone of any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (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.