Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lambert (naval historian)


 * 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. While everyone's participation was policy-based, and are fairly even balanced across the whole AfD, that multiple sources were found and haven't been contested, with a firm balance in favour of keep, I'm going to close this as showing consensus in favour of Keep.

John will have to do something suitable to become more notable than his name-not-sake Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

John Lambert (naval historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources indicating that Lambert or his works are notable. A Google search provides zero information about him at all, discounting primary sources listing him as an author. Loafiewa (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. As far as I know he is not related to me at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per rationale by, who is not related to the subject of our discussion at all!!! Celestina007 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent coverage, failing WP:BASIC; barely more notable than our very own John Lambert Spiderone  23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR as works are well known/have reviews, (btw the Gooooog is not everything:)), Worldcat shows the following: Allied Coastal Forces Of World War II (jointly written by Al Ross), held by around 130 libraries(?) (libraries listing here plus here), reviews listed include Northern Mariner - vol. 1 listed here, vol. 2 listed here, Warship International - vol. 1 here, vol. 2 listed here, United Services (journal of The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies NSW) - here, The Mariner's Mirror - here, subscription required, (so has multiple reviews and is entitled to a wikiarticle, Whoop!!!); The Fairmile 'D' Motor Torpedo Boat held by 70 libraries, reviews listed include  Northern Mariner - here, Warship International - here; The Submarine Alliance (jointly written by David Hill), held by 70 libraries, reviewed by Warship International - listed here; Norman Friedman thinks highly enough of Lambert to have authored/edited two books based on his papers - British Naval Weapons Of World War Two: The John Lambert Collection Volume 1, Destroyer Weapons (2019) held by 475 libraries, British Naval Weapons Of World War Two: The John Lambert Collection Volume 2, Escort and Minesweeper Weapons (2019) held by 17 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, Australian Naval Institute also reviewed Allied Coastal Forces Of World War II vol. 1 here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A serious author on a relatively narrow subject. I regard Conway Maritime as the leading publisher in the field of the history of naval architecture, so that the books are likely to be the definitive works on their subject, until some one produces something better.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR as amply demonstrated above by Coolabahapple. Kges1901 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing and works appear to satisfy notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR as per Coolabahapple Eddie891 Talk Work 13:10, 13 January 2021 (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.