Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Ferrill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 at correct spelling. Eluchil404 08:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ferrill

Arthur Ferrill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I prodded this article yesterday but there was an objection, so to open up the debate I thought I'd nominate. I couldn't find anything from searching the web that lived up to the WP:N "that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" - all I found were term papers and wikipedia mirror sites. As there were 1600 hits for the name on google this has been disputed (as I obviously couldn't check every one). I still say delete - but open to suggestions Madmedea 10:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. His name is actually Arther Ferrill. He has (as far as I can see) authored five books, three of which have been published by Thames & Hudson, and one of which has been published in at least a second edition. Finding multiple reviews of his books is an easy matter. I get 70 hits on JSTOR for "Arther Ferrill", another 35 for "A. Ferrill". This includes articles and reviews by him, articles where he is cited, and seven reviews of his books. up◦land 12:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you've found reliable references/reviews please add them to the article (although we probably need a new one with the correct spelling) Madmedea 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They are available at JSTOR for anyone (with access) looking for them. Adding them to the article without actually using them for revising the text of the article is pointless and potentially misleading. up◦land 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note I moved the article to "Arther Ferrill" which is the spelling shown at Univ. of Washington site, with redirect from "Arthur" --Kevin Murray 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Link to [*http://www.lib.washington.edu/support/fol_newsletter.htm no longer has a reference to subject, but found another at same site, and added it. I'm reluctant to remove the link if for some reason I'm in error. --Kevin Murray 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • At this point we have a mention in the bibliography of a US Navy work, and a list of publications at the Univ. of Washington Library. --Kevin Murray 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We now have many references establishing notability as an expert in ancient Rome and military history. --Kevin Murray 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (1) With the correct spelling now known there are many G-hits to support notability for the unique name, (2) I found a link to an entry at Britianica online with a review of his work and recommending him as a further reading source. I think this established notability, but more references would be nice to improve the article beyond the minimum standards. --Kevin Murray 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator for th AfD cites one among several alternate methods to demonstrate notability (reviewed work by reliable sources), however, there is also the "Professor Test", among other ways which this subjects notablility is now clear after further research. --Kevin Murray 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Research Lead http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0813333024 cites the following reviews:

  • “If you are interested in getting on Ferrill’s roller coaster for a trip covering thousands of years of warfare, you will have a broader perspective and you will find yourself asking questions. Herein lies the value of Origins.” — Military & Naval History Journal
  • “An excellent reference.” — San Diego Union
  • “A clear, well-organized survey of the stratagem and tactics of early warfare, true to its sources, fascinating in scope.” — Northwest Review of Books

While a bookseller’s quotes of other reviews may not be credible evidence, maybe someone could research these sources. My online search has not found these articles. --Kevin Murray 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Two more reviews are claimed by the publisher on the book cover of "fall of Rome":

  • Marine Corps Gazette
  • History (magazine?)
--Kevin Murray 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Another unverified article:

  • Review of Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (The Quarterly Journal of Military History 127/24-5, Andy Grainger), can someone confirm this?
  • Keep but rename Alf photoman 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I couldn't find as much, but it seems it was a spelling problem. fortunately Google usually has at least one or two entries with any imaginable incorrect spelling. DGG 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, 61 results on Google Books, 46 on Google Scholar. (It helps to use the right Google.) These should provide enough for a better article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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.