Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William J. Spahr

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. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Spahr

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. No apparent coverage in WP:RS. Unsourced since 2011. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may have been a failure of WP:BEFORE here as there was, in fact, a reference to a reliable source present in the article at the time of nomination. I have reformatted the article to link it inline and added a bit more that I could find. The majority of references to Spahr in sources are small ones but I believe there is sufficient overall to establish notability, as well as passing WP:AUTHOR #1 - Spahr's work on Zhukov is "widely cited by peers or successors". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the Washington Post link was akin to a death notice which would not be relevant in establishing notablilty rather than an obituary but I fully admit I am not familiar with how these things work in the US. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't see that his work is "widely cited by peers or successors" sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my search, fails WP:GNG. The books are rather WP:MILL; if they were significant, you'd expect to see in-depth reviews of them. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How are the reviews that I cited this morning not in-depth? There is only one for each book, so maybe not enough yet for notability, but they certainly seem to be in-depth, running for a couple of pages each. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an obituary in the WaPo, which is more than a death notice. I found more details about him (with a picture) here. The article can be fleshed out from this and the WaPo article. (Like all West Pointers, his Army career can be charted.) Also found some book references to his service [1][2][3] Found many more in-depth reviews of his books. [4][5] The books are widely cited and influential. eg [6][7] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews are just that, reviews. "Widely cited" requires more than just a couple of citations. Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Reviews are one of the ways in which WP:AUTHOR can be passed per section 4(c) of that guideline. So far we have three reviews of one book and one of another. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that two reviews don't amount to "significant critical attention" for the purposes of 4(c) of AUTHOR. Books get reviewed, 4(c) requires a lot more than two reviews in US Army publications. Only if there were several reviews in significant mainstream publication like the New York Review of Books, major newspapers or magazines or dedicated history publications would 4(c) be met. I don't have either of his books, but looking on Amazon, Zhukov only has one 4 star review, while Stalin's Lieutenants has two reviews one 4 star and one 3 star and I don't see any praise from other renowned authors or publications for either book, indicating that these were not significant works. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have four reviews so far, not two, including in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, which is certainly not a US Army publication. Amazon reviews, and the number of stars that go with them, are meaningless when it comes to showing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok The Journal of Slavic Military Studies seems to be a respected publication, but its the only non-US military review and so I still don't think that amounts to "significant critical attention" for the purposes of 4(c). In relation to Amazon I was pointing out that neither of his books seems to have praise from any renowned authors or publications, but the fact that there are so few reader reviews and their very low rankings among bestsellers in the subject areas also indicates what insignificant works these are, particularly when compared to other books about Zhukov. Mztourist (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Insignificant", or "highly technical and thus not Popular". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG, article does not show his notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. What does that even mean? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alex-h it is not the content of the article it is the subject, your argument is flawed. per WP:ARTN "'Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.'"
Keep As soldier I do not see his medals providing notability, but when I search for {Zhukov: The Rise and Fall of a Great Captain (1993)} in google books I find LOTS of books that list it as a source. Which gets him WP:AUTHOR "'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'" Jeepday (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some links to those "LOTS of books" that list Spahr's Zhukov book as a source. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Army doesn't give the DSM to just anybody - that award is good enough for me for notability. Otherwise the info is supported by good references.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth in order of precedence so not significant and doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Please provide a policy-based justification for your Keep vote.Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He wasn't prominent enough as a soldier to inherently be notable. There's not enough coverage to meet GNG -- the WaPo obit is under the 'local' section, and is pitifully brief. His books did get a couple of reviews in rather niche publications, but I don't think it's enough to push him over the edge of meeting NAUTHOR— I'm seeing a few reviews of one book and one of another, we generally expect multiple reviews of multiple publications. It's admittedly borderline, I also found an article or two that mention him in terms of involvement in a diplomatic incident, but again I don't think it's quite enough to push him into the realm of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of a small number of Western historians authoring works on Soviet military history in the period he was active in. Reviews in specialized military history journals count towards notability as a military historian, and both Zhukov and Stalin's Lieutenants are often cited in works about the Eastern Front, for example [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Discounting reviews in specialist journals simply reinforces systemic bias towards popular historians. Kges1901 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been covered in serious academic journals, which should count for far more than being covered by non-specialist journalists in the press. We seem to see a lot of these "it's not the latest meme on social media so it can't be notable" deletion discussions recently. If we are to be a serious encyclopedia rather than a pop culture compendium then this needs to stop. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Phil Bridger, Kges1901, and Concertmusic. Thriley (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (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.