Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Soldier and the State

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Soldier and the State

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

The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) Casprings (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this article is original research and should not be on Wikipedia. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an astoundingly wrong-headed nomination. First of all, it satisfies WP:NBOOK clause 5 on its face: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Even failing that, it satisfies NBOOK clause 1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. We have reviews of this book in:

These are just the first four on JSTOR out of over 500 hits.

Next, it satisfies clause 3:The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. See, e.g., the sentence I added to the lead, sourced to an article written almost 35 years after the publication of the book, stating that "[a]nyone seriously interested in American military history has to come to terms with Samuel P. Huntington's The Soldier and the State." I could go on and on and on. There are hundreds of articles written about this book, as there are about each of Huntington's books. The nominator ought to just do everyone a favor and withdraw this misbegotten mess now. Oh, I can't resist. Here's one more: American civil-military relations today: the continuing relevance of Samuel P. Huntington's "The soldier and the state" from International Affairs (journal) in 2012: Fifty-five years after it was first published, Samuel Huntington's The soldier and the state remains an essential starting point for serious discussions of American civilmilitary relations.. Good Lord.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement and a section on reception and responses, but the book is obviously notable. When more than 50 years after publication you get an article called "American civil–military relations today: the continuing relevance of Samuel P. Huntington's The soldier and the state"[1] that's a pretty strong sign of notability. I'm not sure how the nominator missed that: even the briefest Google search throws up lots of results.[2][3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule Team Keep: Good lord indeed. I've little to add to alf laylah wa laylah's excellent summation of all the problems with this nomination, save to suggest that the nom not only take a look at WP:BEFORE but follow its provisions in the future. Ravenswing 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's notable, but so what? It'll get closed as keep. No need for a lecture. Trout, maybe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2014 (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.