Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Spaul

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Spaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Don't see how he is notable enough as an ancient historian/archaeologist. Seems to have published only a handful of journal articles, and I'm not sure if the books are enough to justify the retention of this article. 2/3rds of the article text is just his time at university and teaching in Africa and the source of his death isn't even an obituary about him but an article on his wife. It doesn't look as if we can call him preeminent in his field Holyisland (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I did some WP:BEFORE He meets WP:AUTHOR because his books have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Examples:

1. The Roman Army now, By: Lendon, J. E.. Classical Journal , Apr/May2004, Vol. 99 Issue 4, p441-449, 9p, Database: Art & Architecture Source
2. https://www.academia.edu/1059530/Alae_et_Cohortes_Daciae_et_Moesiae_A_review_and_update_of_J_Spauls_Ala_and_Cohors CT55555 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 181 citations in Google Scholar for his book Cohors 2 suggests he was a recognised expert in his field and passes WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think the level of book reviews that seem to be available is pretty borderline, but the heavy citations for a work in classics (and pretty good numbers for his other book Ala²) push me to the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons given by CT55555, StAnselm, and David Eppstein. It's a good idea to have articles about authors whose works are likely to be cited in Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he passes WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2022 (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.