Deletion of Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

Comment: per Richard Frye.  Richard Frye notes:"In this book Dr. Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek side and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see other perspectives, and Dr. Farrokh sheds light on many Persian institutions in this history, such as the Sassanian elite cavalry, the "saravan".  Osprey Publishing is to be congratulated for publishing Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, which presents another aspect of wars between East and West in ancient times.".  Richard Frye has endorsed (waiting for DW to come up with the usual conspiracy theories and psychological analysis on the personality of Richard Frye), which is sufficient from a Historian's perspective.  Unfortunately the users here are not qualified historians like Richard Frye who is an expert on Sassanid matters and has correctly noted the book's importance in terms of the details given on the Saravan and other details of Sassanid warfare.  Indeed how many books have written in detail about Saravans?  Something that rarely is discussed in such details in the literature.  Also the book has been endorsed positively by other scholars in universities http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781846031083.  The review by Lendering, who does not have a rank as a historian has been responded to here''Let’s Abandon the Distortions of Achaemenid Studies''http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DRKFINDEX.html.  For example Lendering wrongly claimed the Godarz Site does not existhttp://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DKFGotarze.html or he took the whole concept of Achaemenid imperial navy out of contexthttp://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DKFNavy.html and (very) falsely stated the situation of Iranian studies in the Westhttp://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DKFIrStudies.html.  The book also has won two awardshttp://www.kavehfarrokh.com/awards/best-history-book-2008/http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/awards/independent-book-publishers-association-2008/ and one of the awards has been cited by BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2008/11/081105_bolur_waalm.shtml (this is from BBC website covering the award for the book) which makes it notable.  Also the book has been used for instructions in academic arenas so that is sufficient per Wikipedia:Notability (books) which states:''The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country''.  It has been used in Stanford: "Meticulously researched and documented... I have recommended it to many and am also using it here at Stanford not only for research but also in a course ..."(Patrick Hunt, Stanford University).  The exact course title is: "This book is now the text of a Stanford University course entitled “ARC 118 - ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART OF PERSIA“".  Of course if someone wants to fly to California and have a chat with the mentioned Professor, before certifying it on Wikipedia, then be my guess, but the basic policy is .  Also in University of Ottowa: "This is an excellent well-illustrated survey of an important period, useful for students and a general readership alike. It deals not only with military matters, but also more broadly with political developments in Persia. My students have consulted it with profit." -Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawahttp://www.kavehfarrokh.com/books/shadows-in-the-desert-ancient-persia-at-war/http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Desert-Ancient-General-Military/dp/1846031087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227723092&sr=1-1 .  Unless there is convincing evidence that these Professors from Stanfard and Ottowa lied (something some other users could be suggesting) and BBC did not cover the award received (it is their website) for the book, then it is best to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:AGF)