Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bashow

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. Opinion is split. Also, the article was substantially edited during the AfD, and comments later in the discussion (after the improvements) seem to be more favorable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Bashow

[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)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The only stated notability claim here is that he and his work exist, and the sources are an online bookstore, his author profile on the self-published website of his own publishing company, and a single news article in which he isn't the subject, but merely gets glancingly namechecked as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else -- none of which are notability-supporting sources. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his books technically metaverify their own existence -- he has to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his books available on Amazon or Abebooks, to be considered notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how he meets WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR.......PK T(alk) 15:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Author's comment: there are now 2 examples of his being more than "just a ...." Pi314m (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't see how he passes GNG or NAUTHOR. Fails most NPROF, and the only question is NPROF(8) - but I would argue Canadian Military Journal is not a "major, well-established academic journal". Article itself seems to mainly consist of his version of the Red Baron shootdown debate. Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Military Journal is definitely a notable and quite important publication since it is the official journal of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Department of National Defence. Even if it were printed on fig leaves it would be notable and important. But it is not an academic journal and does not claim to be one. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - author of a series of books, they appear to be respectable books on focal topics of military history. What I am not seeing when I search is that his work is widely cited, or that he has been profiled as a soldier or as a writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC) sourcing page now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep more than enough book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR, in addition to extensive, INDEPTH coverage by the Canadian press of his engagements with other military historians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know all coverage of subjects in sources must be "in depth" but isn't WP:INDEPTH specifically about events and not persons? -The Gnome (talk)

Leaning towards delete. The article as it stands seems to be promoting the book, in some cases using sources that don't even mention it. Clever, but somewhat disingenuous. Deb (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this comment, I took a closer look and removed a section about the who-downed-the-Red-Baron debate with soruces tah didn't mentioned Bashow or his book, just the debate, covered at Manfred von Richthofen. The page may indeed have begun as PROMO. It is entirely possible that most of our bio pages do. but we keep the notable ones. Note that this man has had muliiple books reviewed in scholarly journals and general circulation newspapers, that his books are cited (not high numbers of citations, but cited) by scholars; that his books are discussed and debated in general circulation newspapers, and that there had been at least one newspaper profile of him - when a rewrite/update of a 20 year old book was published. this is the sort of coverage that passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has published enough book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR. I do consider the Canadian Military Journal to be a major, well-established academic journal. Has received some widespread coverage over the Red Baron controversy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is not an academic one. But it is the official, professional journal of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Department of National Defence. As such, its notability and importance cannot be doubted. -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2018 (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.