Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick amory


 * 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 & rename.  Sango 123  00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Patrick amory
This article is entirely WP:VAIN -- Clappingsimon talk 08:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom unless the book turns out to be a widely-regarded contribution the field (I don't know enough about the period to have the foggiest clue). BigHaz 08:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep serious author (in his first life at least)    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename "Patrick Amory." Rohirok 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Send to cleanup: This should include un-Geogre's Law-ing it, Wikifying, and getting independent information on both his scholarly and w00ting careers.  Matador is a major independent.  Geogre 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename "Patrick Hugh Amory." 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The criteria for author notability requires that their work be reviewed by multiple independent sources.  His was not. I searched the Literature Resource Center and his name doesn't even come up, which means no non-trivial publication has ever reviewed his book.  Completely non-notable. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Change to keep. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 (Cambridge, 1996) in the American Historical Review 103 (1998) 1569–70. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I don't see what you're seeing - where is the citation you are listing on this Amazon page? I see a blurb of a review, but it doesn't specify where it is from. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My fault, I didn't mean to paste that link. What I'm trying to say is that a Google search claims the book was reviewed in American Historical Review.  And I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been reviewed, as it was published by the Cambridge University Press who are a major academic publisher.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I was wrong.  :)  I changed my vote per that citation - I would prefer there be more, but I'll assume that if one publication reviewed it, it is verifiable. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:27, 4 August 2006 (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.