Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter James (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James (historian)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent source to establish the notability of the subject. A notability tag has been on the page for over a year. Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, although he's a fringe, intensely controversial figure. Centuries of Darkness was very controversial on release as these links will show.[1][2][3][4] Reviews of other works[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colapeninsula's sources establish that he is a notable and controversial figure. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The popular press reviews listed above need to be added, as do the many reviews in academic journals (primarily of Centuries of Darnkness -- they are listed on the author's web site, but the originals should be found and cited. I think it might exemplify the maxim that the way to get noticed in the academic world is to publish something drastically wrong on a subject of great interest. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources have been provided here to establish nobility.LM2000 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (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.