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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Le Blanc (historian)[edit]

Paul Le Blanc (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Cannot find notability for this historian. The citations are to articles he wrote, or to material put out by the very minor college where he teaches. One exception is a linked Kirkus review of a collection of essays on Socialism in the U.S.A., one of them by LeBlanc (discussion of LeBlanc in full:"Historian Paul Le Blanc argues persuasively for a third American revolution mounted by 'a broad left-wing coalition' that could spark a mass socialist movement.") There is a long list of books, almost all appear to be collections of the writings of notable figures edited or compiled by Paul. Publishers are not listed and none of LeBlanc's books is in the collection of major university whose catalog I searched. The exception is Leblanc's first book (probably his doctoral thesis). My university does not own it, but unlike his other books, this one got a review findable in JSTOR. Unfortunately the reviewer writes: "It would be fine if (LeBlanc) accomplished this important and worthwhile aim, unfortunately Lenin and the Revolutionary Party promises much more than it delivers. Hobbled by an incoherence... it ends up... failing to make a substantial contribution to knowledge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not listed in the daily logs. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It looks like WP:AUTHOR would be easier to pass than WP:PROF for this sort of material. But for that, I think we should distinguish the books that are mostly others' writings edited by the subject from the books written by the subject. I did find another published review of one of his actual books [1]. But putting that together with the one mentioned by the nominator is not, I think, enough, especially because of the specialized audience of these reviews compared to e.g. the newspaper reviews more typically expected in WP:AUTHOR. Certainly if this is kept it needs to be trimmed down to material that can be given reliable sources; for instance, I think most of the "Scholarship" section needs to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing about him comes even close to passing the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- 20 historical works and being a main associate editor on a substantial encyclopedia seem to me sufficient to warrant keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- over 1,000 library holdings in total for his books (not counting one early book that I couldn't verify his authorship of). I think it needs to be trimmed substantially, but it's far above the bar for a humanist/social science author. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Anyone is who the author of a CHOICE Outstanding Book of the year is notable--it's one of the highest awards for an academic book. It also represents a substantial review.I added some book holdings from worldcat (Any CHOICE review, in fact, not just the 5% that they mark as outstanding, is a selective review showing notability-) Besides the book he edited, some of his books have over 500 library holdings, which is contributing information. I do not think the article as it stands needs cutting--its just a plain description of what the books deal with, which can be taken from any good source--even a publisher's description can be used for this--tho a publisher's description does not in the least make for notability or justify statements of praise or evaluations. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • About that award, Here: [2] the ALA says that it gives out about 700 such awards per year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the library ownership of his books, most of them are edited collections of the work of classic socialist authors; for example, the collection of Rosa Luxembourg writings that the co-edited was presumably purchased for its value in gathering Luxembourg essays otherwise hard to find because they were printed in hard to find old newspapers. Luxembourg was a notable figure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am genuinely puzzled, the page looks good, even the idea of "A Freedom Budget for All Americans" being selected as one of the 700 or so best academic titles of the year sounds good, But when I google "A Freedom Budget for All Americans" + "le blanc" in a search on books, I get exactly 2 titles citing the book both by LeBlanc. [3] Books with any impact at all come up with scores of footnotes in other people's books. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or try a google search on his name. The first page brings up Wikipedia, every other source on the first page of the search is self sourced. It includes online chat pages, his publisher Haymarket Books (a non-profit publisher subsizides by an organizaiton he blongs to - the International Socialist Organization) and a journal published by the ISO. Is there anyone else with a Wikipedia page for whom whom the first page of a google search turns up no indicaiton of notability?

Page 2 of the same google search turns up more or less the same: 2 ISO publications and his linked-in page, and nothing indicating notability. I am googling in English, but from Alsace and google.fr may be producing different results than it would in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I may be wrong. I just haven't seen evidence of notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (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.