Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbin Laird

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. ✗plicit 23:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robbin Laird

[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)

This article has had an unresolved sourcing tag for eight years. Now it's time for it to go.

This BLP has two non-RS sources. A standard WP:BEFORE finds prodigious instances of the name in Google News but, on close examination, these are each instances of bylined articles by the subject which are, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT. No other sources offer WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "awards" listed in the article are unsourced (and aren't even awards!), therefore, don't meet WP:AWARD. While he seems to have written a score of technical books that *might* have been reviewed, they don't meet the high standards required under WP:NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory search on JSTOR comes up with a very large number of reviews of his books. While many of these are brief (reflecting in part the age of the work), I think that it is enough for a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews include [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting reviews in journals doesn't pass the NAUTHOR criterion of "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the 3rd NAUTHOR criterion, specifically the part that says "work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of criterion 3 is that the work must also be "significant or well known". Was it a New York Times bestseller? No. Any bestseller list? No. The subject of any other commentary other than obligatory inserts in the book review sections of journals? No. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that significant or well-known means NYT bestseller. I am seeing a body of work that past consensus would tend to accept as meeting the NAUTHOR criteria. I'm going to step back and let others comment at this point. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"past consensus would tend to accept" In more than 700 AfD discussions I've never seen there be a consensus that reviews in the reviews sections of academic journals are anything other than WP:ROUTINE for purposes of personal N, let alone that they establish evidence of work being "significant or well known". I think our past consensus has generally accepted book reviews of textbooks and academic readers in journals, which generally languish in obscurity and are seen by no more than dozens or hundreds of people, correctly do not breach the high threshold required for demonstration of "significance". Chetsford (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that is entirely incorrect and book reviews are generally accepted for notability for an academic. Jahaza (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Book reviews here [13], here [14]. Should satisfy author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR, with multiple reviews of his books. The books are not textbooks, and reviews in journals aren't obligatory - many books are listed as Recent Publications or similar without being reviewed. This person is also often quoted in newspapers, and his talks reported on, in the US (and even in the UK) about his views on defence, Soviet threats to NATO and relationship to unified Germany, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. Sources appear to be reliable and independent. WikiMentor01 (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind !voting Keep but -- "Sources appear to be reliable and independent." -- really? There are two sources: (a) a self-publishing platform called smashwords.com that simply contains a photo of Laird, and, (b) sldinfo.com, an organization Laird founded. If we're going to keep this, we have to at least present arguments that will allow us to pretend it's a viable article. Chetsford (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (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.