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. Needs work but the consensus is to keep. Tone 20:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Newcomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An unreferenced WP:BLP. Tagged for notability since 2010. A possible advert for his books. The books themselves are fairly niche but well received on Amazon. WP:Before isn't returning anything, this may be because the name is quite common. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably not promotional (not nearly polished enough) - probably just an author stub to begin with (and it is that now). I do suspect he passes WP:NAUTHOR - e.g. see recent coverage on his 1958 "Abandon Ship!" book - [1][2] referring to it as a classic. We use his 1961 book as a reference on Battle of Savo Island (a FA). His name does make BEFOREing a tad more difficult. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep . Passes NAUTHOR. Bokks are well known historical refs.- Altenmann >talk 07:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR in aggregate, though it doesn't look like there's a lot of RS biographical info out there (a limited amount of primary information may need to be used). Iwo Jima appears to have been reviewed in both Washington Post (flap quote) and New York Times Review of Books[3] as well as Flying Magazine[4], cited by 19 works including Flags of Our Fathers, and recommended for further reading by the writer of the Marine Corps's 50th Anniversary history of Iwo Jima.[5] Also namechecked in a Kirkus review for another book[6]. Abandon Ship was reviewed in at least NYTRB and Times Literary Supplement[7], further covered here[8], and its rerelease was on the NYT Bestseller list for a number of weeks[9][10]. Boston Uni holds his collection[11]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hydronium Hydroxide has already given some sources for reviews such as New York Times [12], I can also see many in addition for just his book on Iwo Jima, e.g. [13][14][15], therefore should qualify per WP:AUTHOR #3. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2019 (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.