Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junius P. Rodriguez (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Junius P. Rodriguez}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junius_P._Rodriguez_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Junius P. Rodriguez}})

Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMIC. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

::Keep. Rodriguez has achieved a strong reputation in history scholarship, with many reviews in leading scholarly journals praising his work as editor of major reference books in history of slavery. He won the top academic award of the American Library Association for a reference book--they give ONE book the award every year, so it's a top recognition for scholarship. He is cited in obver 200 scholarly books and articles according to google.scholar Visibility among editors = good, as numerous scholarly journals have called on him to review major monographs (including . Journal of Southern History, Journal of Social History, History: Reviews of New Books, Louisiana History, Southern Studies, Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Journal of Illinois History and Journal of the Early Republic. That's national recognition. Rjensen (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly notable under WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as expert is his field and editor of notable books(s). The ALA listing is sufficient to show that. (But that he has reviewed books for various major journals is not only not an indication of importance, but not even worth mentioning in the article--such reviews are very minor pieces of work, and we never include them in academic bios. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- I don't see what has changed since the previous AfD; clearly notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, notable works and sufficient independent coverage. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The article does not well-establish the notability the keep voters seem to identify. I don't blame Muboshgu for making the nomination of such poorly-done article. I would otherwise suggest userfying this entry so it can be cleaned up before returning to mainspace if not for a growing keep consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

:*I cleaned up the article a bit. I believe the subject's notability is a bit clearer now. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The list of books published or edited by him should be sufficient to warrant preserving this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• It's pretty clear what the consensus is. I withdraw. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.