Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Haswell

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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Haswell[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer and soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haswell is widely cited, and often reviewed. Current bibliography is incomplete, even as regards books. Also his work as "Author for Service Intelligence" needs to be explored. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It might be a borderline case. The article can be expanded, I do not think deleting it would be a good idea. His books have been catalogued in National Library of Australia and google search emits good number of results. Hitro talk 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although many of these debates have been going to a split no consensus, I am happy to give this enough seven days in the hope of additional input. KaisaL (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His books are held in up to 400 libraries in WorldCat, but I was able to find only one review, and that in Kirkus, which reviews just about everything coming out of mainstream publishers. And that review was not positive: "Haswell's biography nonetheless fails to grasp the political climate of the day, depicting James as a victim." His scholarship seems to be non-notable (few citations in scholarly works per G-scholar). Without reviews and cites, it is hard to argue for notability. I have no opinion as to his military bone fides since I'm not up on those policies, but as author he isn't notable. LaMona (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that looking him up is tricky, because he doesn't have a stable first name, because he seems to have sometimes published under a pseudonym, and because he was publishing pre-internet. Nevertheless, it was easy to find reviews in general circulartion American newspapers (I added a couple to the article") and to validate him by typing a cou;le of unique book titles from the page into a search on books google My search on ""the first respectable spy : the life and times of Colquhoun Grant" here: [1]; my search on ""The Intelligence and Deception of the D-Day Landings"," here: [2]. That's certainly enough to validate notability. Article needs expansion, User:LaMona, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Clarityfiend, would you revisit? Perhaps run a different kind of search, in light of the name problem, and the fact that his career took place in prehistoric times?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see his books listed here, but I don't see reviews. Also, finding the book's title in other books is kind of like doing a google search on a term - you get hits, but it isn't clear, unless you can look at the resulting documents, whether the documents represent significant treatment. I am wary of using Google book searches as conclusions when one does not have access to the books themselves. It's a finding aid, not the end of research. So, no, I don't think this is enough to validate notability. LaMona (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the hits on the first page of my 2 books searches (every search is different) led to multiple fully legible pages where information from the two books I searched was being discussed in the text of the book I located. And I did add book reviews to the page. This one truly looks like a slam dunk to me. Odd, because my findings usually jibe with LaMona's.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking myself because LaMona is very reliable. Haswell is clearly a popularizer, not an academic historian, but major publishers don't go on publishing an author, and American publishers don't reprint British titles, unless the man's books are selling. How popular? Hard to say. There are sources like this: [3]. But, mostly, there are the mentions of his work in other books and the old book reviews. Add another book review, this one form the Los Angeles Times. He really does seem to have been a reasonably well-known author in his day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the book sources identified above which have significant coverage for this pre-internet subject, so that WP:BASIC is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as although this is still rather thin, it may be enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 13 July 2016 (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.