Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Sabrosky


 * 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. ansh 666 22:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Alan Sabrosky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College should be enough for WP:MILPERSON criteria 6 and 8 and at least one of his papers was reasonably influential. His predictions and opinions were routinely cited in the press in the 1980s and during the First Gulf War.
 * NOTE: This article was fully protected recently due to persistent disruptive editing. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the list of qualifications for MILPERSON and the closest qualification I see is #6 "Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them." The article does not currently establish this, so maybe it needs a few more references. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why being "Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College" makes him notable via #6 or #8. This academic rank seems no more intrinsically notable than being Dean of the Faculty at Harvey Mudd or Head of the English Department as ASU. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's really not comparable. I would say he passes NPROF as a director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university) - the Army War College is not a university, its a graduate level program only for military officers who have been selected. Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The operative word there is "independent", not "university." The SSI is not independent, it is a subordinate part of the Army War College. So that part of NPROF does not apply to this case. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Passing MILPERSON-6/8 or NPROF is borderline. I see (manual calculation) a h-index of around 10 and 1 major publication (Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war - 166 citations, the rest have 32, 28, 26, 26, 5 less than 20, the rest less than 10). What is of concern here is WP:NFRINGE in regards to his 9/11 and Mossad operation theories - coverage of this seems to be scant and mostly passing (at least in reputable publishing outlets....) - and not in depth - e.g. there is this and on the other hand which support this - but there isn't enough in-depth mainstream coverage of this to cover the fringe aspect in a NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What? Nothing in the article is fringe. The unrelated fact that fringe theories can't be covered in an NPOV manner is a tautology, not a ground for deletion. Being Director of the Strategic Studies Institute is definitely enough for MILHIST 8. I don't know the details of his "theories" but given the coverage I have found, I'm inclined to believe that more sources exist about Sabrosky that aren't accessible. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject's pre-retirement career at the war college was entirely mainstream and covered in a NPOV manner in the article. However, the subject, following his retirement, is to a large extent known for his 9/11 views - which I do not see how we can cover in a NPOV manner given the lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources on this (see WP:NFRINGE). His prior academic career is borderline - but the NFRINGE issues (which also seem to be causing BLP/vandalism issues on the page) - sets a higher notability bar. Note that fringe theories and promoters can be covered in a NPOV manner (in fact - we have several BLP subjects that are notable just for that) - however to do so requires good independent sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * NFRINGE is completely irrelevant, this is a BLP. I agree that the 9/11 conspiracy theory issues are contributing to vandalism on the page, but both 9/11 conspiracy theories and BLP are DS areas. If all it takes to get an article deleted is a couple of months of bad behavior we won't have much of an encyclopedia left. That said, I don't particularly mind either way, because it is a minor article and notability is borderline, if it requires this level of policing and attention it probably isn't worth it. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have said about 6 times that the reason you do not find many sources on me is that the Wikipedia collective excludes my middle name. I learned two years ago that using "Alan Sabrosky" misses almost all of my military and government and academic work, but using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" brings all of that up - including a lot of sources. Having said that, I personally think the "Alan Sabrosky" article as it exists should be deleted. notability aside - it is factually inaccurate in several places and a best demeaning. If the Wikipedia editors feel that what comes up on "Alan Ned Sabrosky" merits an article, I would be gratified (and I think what was briefly put up in late May might give some idea of that), but I would rather have nothing than what is there now. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * At least some of the books should pass notability and the academic work has been cited enough to be incorporated into existing articles. That might be another option to preserve notable encyclopedic content and resolve the fringe theory/blp/vandalism issues of this article.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A keep (selective content) but rename to the notable book on alliances would be a good option, and would place the later fringe stuff clearly out of scope. Suggestions on which title?Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm honestly not sure about the specialized notability criteria in this case, but in practice we usually keep articles about academics where there is significant published discussion of their work; incorporating the middle name as suggested, I see about 3 pages of potentially useful JSTOR hits, including two reviews and a summary of his degrees and the title of his dissertation (predating the Army War College). That plus the number of citations on Google Scholar make me pretty confident I could construct a summary of his book publications from third-party sources, so that box is checked. I did not find independent sources for his birthdate and birthplace; 's proposed material on the article talk page (very similar to the May 13 version of the article, so much so that I wonder whether there is an official published biography being used as model, but Docbrosk1941's version cites sources) cites a regional Who's Who, but my understanding is that we don't cite Who's Who as sole source for biographical details in a BLP because of its self-sourced nature; in any case I don't believe I have access to it. (Is there a faculty page from any of the teaching/administrative positions, perhaps now only preserved at the Wayback Machine, that might state year and place of birth in addition to attesting to the non-military academic posts?) So the article would be mostly a summary of academic work, which is not unusual for living academics. (We often have to wait for an obituary to fill in biographical details, since newspapers rarely write articles about academics, and I imagine military researchers are all the more likely not to have garnered such coverage. In any event, I didn't find any.) What puts it over the top for me is the ongoing coverage of "Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond". True, it's not extended coverage, but it's widespread enough that I believe notability has been achieved. And I agree with that neutral and not excessive coverage of that aspect of his career is possible and that we should therefore seek to give the reader a balanced article rather than deleting it. (I would set to and demonstrate, but the article is full protected. If I have time, I'll draft something in user space.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC) Using the new name, the only work by Sabrosky with more than 100 citations in Google Scholar is his book on alliances. Taking a closer look at some of these, I did not find people citing it as influential or important but saw its inclusion in footnotes and citing others who disputed his claims there. I am also not seeing mainstream coverage of the article "Treason, Betrayal, and Deceit" (unless you count a brief mention in Washington Times as mainstream coverage,) just a lot of POV pushers using it to vilify Sabrosky or Israel, based on their POVs. 16:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair and balanced assessments. Please note I am NOT a retired Marine officer, I did not retire and was never an officer. If anyone does decide to rework (& protect) the article with the extended name, I could email them copies of relevant documentation (e.g., DD214 after 10 years in the Marines, Army War College diploma & Chair info & award at the completion of my service there) - that way you would not have to wait for my obit (which I would like to defer as long as possible).Docbrosk1941 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful is participants could review and discuss the proposed rewrite.
 * Comment. Since the article is full-protected, I've made a proposed rewrite at User:Yngvadottir/Alan Sabrosky rewrite. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist: as 78:26 said, it would be helpful if participants examined the proposed rewrite.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - addressing re-write - the rewritten article in and of itself is reasonable, however it does not demonstrate that Sabrosky passes the WP:NFRINGE bar. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is covered therein by:
 * ref13 - Alan Sabrosky himself on Salem-News(!) - not an acceptable source per WP:FRIND.
 * ref14 - The Forward (a decent source) - that gives Sabrosky 14 words in a list - not INDEPTH.
 * ref15 - American Free Press (RS?) - gives Sabrosky less than a paragraph - not INDEPTH.
 * ref16 - Commentary Magazine - give Sabrosky a paragraph and a half - not INDEPTH.
 * ref17 - ADL - this is an in-depth report by a respected organization, however we often view SPLC/ADL reports as primaryish.
 * ref18 - JPOST reporting on ADL's report (which is a good sign regarding the ADL's report - it isn't a tree falling in a forest...) - however while Sabrosky is given as an example by JPost - he gets a short paragraph (around 4 lines).
 * To sum up, while I applaud the quality of Yngvadottir's rewrite, it does not address the NFRINGE issue - A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.. As for the sources in the rewrite covering his pre-conspiracy career - refs1 to refs12 do not cover Sabrosky himself in depth and independently, but rather are either self-written or cover (or in some cases - just reference) works by Sabrosky. Sabrosky himself does not get an automatic pass via SOLDIER/PROF. I could see how we could write an article on one of Sabrosky's reviewed works (the alliances book) - as it has been reviewed independently.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What WP:NFRINGE bar? - this is a BLP. His work is highly-cited enough to pass NPROF. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When a BLP is known, to a large extent, as a "conspiracy theorist"(per and several other recent sources - non of which cover him INDEPTH, but do apply the label in their own voice) - NFRINGE is relevant to the BLP. He has a h-index of 10. One fairly well cited work - Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war (166 citations per scholar) - the rest being in the 1-30 range of citations - does not pass NPROF.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Yngvadottir's rewrite Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  Delete  certainly fails WP:PROF and WP:SOLDIER. Also fails WP:BASIC because there is no profile, not even enough in the way of INDEPTH coverage in the articles that mention him to source a basic bio (where was he born, where did he serve).  Fails WP:AUTHOR because little note has been taken of work he has published.  That leaves us with the tiny cluster of articles about accusations he flung at Jewish Americans in 2017 and the quesiton of whether it passes WP:NFRINGE.  It does not look like enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)  Turns out he held a named chair at a major institution.  See below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I think votes based on NFRINGE should be deweighted. This is not a standalone article about a fringe theory. In cases where there are likely additional inaccessible sources for a subject that is most likely notable, the usual practice is to keep the articles. This is especially true in the case of notable persons from the 80s or early 90s where additional sources are less likely to be found by searching Google. For a former Director of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, there is a high probably that additional sources exist, and also that the Google Scholar citations count is not fully accurate and should not be taken as authoritative. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not "base" my iVote on NFRINGE. I wrote that since he fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:AUTHOR, and I will add that he also fails  WP:ANYBIO,  his claim to notability hangs on the notability under WP:NFRINGE of an accusation he flung.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think fiat statements that something fails NPROF or NAUTHOR or NSOLDIER that doesn't give reasons for this or address any of the substantive issues raised during the discussion are unhelpful. All you said it "certainly fails WP:PROF." You should also tell us why you think so. Icewhiz in his above vote also relies on the citation count, but in the discussion above there are other NPROF criteria discussed that neither of you have addressed. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ONUS is on those citing the SNG. Sabrosky has no grounds for most SOLDIER criteria, and SOLDIER(8) would be a big stretch for one 100 citation book - note that SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability anyway - it is not a SNG. NAUTHOR for one book with a 100 citations? A stretch. NPROF is the only SNG with weight. evaluating NPROF(1) the h-index (weighted per field) is relevant - and 10 wouldn't be a pass. NPROF (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), and (9) are quite clearly not relevant. His academic position is not sufficients for NPROF(5)(6). What we are left with is an individual promoting fringe theories that does not have INDEPTH coverage leading to GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree about NPROF 6. Director of the SSI is a very important academic position in an institution that is not a University. According to the Library of Congress SSI "publishes national security and strategic research and analysis which serves to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between the military and academia." In fact, other directors of the SSI would pass notability under NPROF 6 also.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even close. If he held the top level post at the War College it probably would a PROF6 pass. We might have had something to discuss if he were head of SSI (a sub branch of the college). However he did not head the SSI (per SSI - plain director) - he was "director of studies" - someone who answers to the director.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't anywhere in the link you cited. Sabrosky is even cited by David Petraeus. His earlier work was hugely influential - one of his essays from the 1980s was cited by David Petraeus in 2010 (while he was a 4 star general, he became CIA director in 2011) . He still passes NPROF under various criteria. Google Scholar isn't even picking up the Petraeus cite - while Google scholar can be helpful to support notability if the cites are high quality, it shouldn't be relied on for deletion, especially where the subject is most likely notable. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument would be stronger if you brought the sources that you assert support notability to his page, with the passages that show its significance. But it  for  a single article to establish notability, it would have to have had quite an impact; such as reshaping an entire academic field, or starting something in the real world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was first published in 1986, and then reprinted in 2010 one year before Petraeus became CIA director. This was Petraeus' doctoral dissertation - his ideas of course became quite influential when he was selected to serve as director the the CIA ushering in this COIN business. The cited essay of Sabrosky's is Preparing for Low Intensity Conflict Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is it cited merely, or is there a substantive engagement with Sabrosky's argument in the body of the text, and, of there is, would you be willing to copy paste the material here? I ask because a mere citation in an PhD thesis does not usually mean all that much.  This is because in the social sciences in your dissertation you are expected to cite every previous article on the narrow topic you have chosen, significant or not.  It's the done thing.  It is not at all an indication that the cited papers are individually significant.  It is more of an academic exercise, a sort of high-level homework assignment to show that the student has learned to thoroughly search the literature before addressing a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a source confirming he was a named chair at the Army War College which I posted below. If there are no objections I'm going to collapse some of this extended discussion to make life easier for the closing admin. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that he Sabrosky either is or used to be a columnist for something called Veterans Today, a FRINGE, hate-site about which a series of Wikipedia pages have been created, and deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-notability is not inherited. There are no sources for Veterans Today except one SPLC article. However if you go back to pre-9/11 sources - around the First Gulf War and a bit earlier, most likely additional sources do exist for Sabrosky. Sources from that time period are less likely to be indexed in Google Scholar or found through Google Books or a web search. We don't delete articles about likely notable people because they've written articles for non-notable blog sites. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you refuting things I never suggested? My point is that most of what has been noticed about him in SECONDARY sources is that he is spews hate-speech and is a conspiracy theorist; I mentioned Veterans Today only specifically because being a "columnist" for a FRINGE website does not confer notability, yet this is what comes up in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We certainly do not keep articles because somebody guesses that more sources exist. I did a little searching in Proquest news archive, what turns up are sources establishing that he is a minor league 9/11 conspiracy theorist.  If we keep the article we would have to 1.) rewrite the lede and the text demonstrating that his notablity - such as it is - lies in his status as a conspiracy theorist; and,  2.) find a WP:RS for the statement that he was "Director of Studies of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute" (it appears to be accurate, but also brief. It would be useful to know the dates of his service in Carlisle.) But being a minor FRINGE theorist doesn't him notable. And I ocntinue to think that he fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fact check He did not "coauthor" the book Prisoners of War?: Nation-States in the Modern Era., as the aritcle states.  He was co-editor with Charles S. Gochman of a collection of articles published as a book, which seems to have gotten zero reviews and has been cited only a handful of times.  Co-editing such a volume confers little if any notability.   Apologizing for the multiple posts, but when someone argues for keeping a bio on someone who looks completely WP:MILL to me I can't help double checking to see if I'm missing something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you guys not know what SSI is? There is already RS cited for his position as director. WP:MILL is a joke. See the above comment about an essay of Sabrosky's from the 1980's cited by David Petraeus in 2010. Google Scholar isn't even picking it up. Why do you find it so hard to believe that additional sources exist? You should also strike the above BLP violations, they are not ok here just because it is AfD. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If kept, the article would have to be sourced to articles that use the phrasing I use above, including, Oberlin Students Receive Anti-Semitic Email from Self-Proclaimed ‘Truthseeker’, 9/11 Anniversary Sparks New Wave of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories] and similar. The conspiracy theories and hate-speech are the sole aspect of his career that has gotten any attention in WP:RS.  Just not enough attention to support  an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No way, the notability of an article is not determined by some demands that editors make about its content at AfD. Also noting this article was only nominated for AfD after it needed full protection for persistent BLP violations. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He was not director of SSI (yes, I know who they are... And they are fairly small - around 20 faculty) - he was "director of studies" - one of a few "director of" positions that are below the director.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will futrher note that several bona fida directors of the SSI, including the present one I believe, are redlinked.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is another 1980s source I don't have full access to right now. - Based on what I have found out in a somewhat rushed manner, it seems that Sabrosky was influential in Pentagon policy up to at least around the First Gulf War era. His publication on Low-intensity conflict was cited by David Petraeus in 1986 in paper which was republished in 2010 shortly before Petraeus became CIA Director. Sabrosky is routinely cited in documents that are not indexed by Google Scholar like  this DTIC Low Intensity Conflict: A Selected Bibliography in which he is cited twice. I think based on these two additional sources, it is not unlikely that more sources exist and that Sabrosky's work was influential at the policy level. I think we should at least give this article some time before deletion to see what other sources can be found.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the snippet from the Johns Hopkins source he was also a named chair the "General of the Army MacArthur Chair of Research" at the Army War College - there is further content that I don't have full access to right now, but a named chair position should be enough to pass NPROF. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And is the Army War College a "major institution of higher education and research"? This is far from obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an accredited institution for graduate level studies, I mistakenly thought it was not a university because at universities college is colloquially used for the undergraduate school. Why would you think it wasn't? Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Army War College is one of our great research institutions and graduate faculties - in a limited field, but so are several of our elite post-graduate studies and research schools, such as Rockefeller University.  It is an honor to be appointed to attend, and an honor to be invited to teach at Carlisle.  There is a  "General Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research" at the War College.  If Sabrosky held it, he automatically passes WP:PROF.  We need a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited the WP:RS above, but here it is again: You can search it for Alan Sabrosky, it's on Page xiii.
 * Yes, and in several other sources, although the phrasing of the title of that chair does vary. Switching my iVote to Keep as per WP:PROF. He's not the first academic to turn into an advocate for a FRINGE cause. Article will need major revisions for accuracy and to give WP:DUE to the coverage his crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy has gotten.E.M.Gregory (talk)
 * Have you looked at the rewrite in my user space, or just at the article as it currently is? (I believe it's still full-protected.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2018 (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.