Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:28, 20 May 2007

The Irish Famine (book)

The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be judged to be advertising and promoting non-notable material. Which in itself would be viewed as and covered by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement--Domer48 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At least one reliable source is already present, and a quick Googling finds at least a couple more good sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I dont think that having short summary on a commercial website fulfills WP:BOOK. WP:BOOK states that the book must be subject to "multiple, non-trivial published works" - its doesnt, OR "won a major literary award" - its hasnt, OR "made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture" it isnt, OR "subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities" - not to my knowledge OR finally "book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources" - altough the authors are know they do not fall into this category. Therefore I am leaning towards delete until there is more references added that go beyond either a summary in a commercial website or we find an indepth analysis of its contents in a maintstream reliable source.--Vintagekits 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)]]. It could also be judged to be [[Wikipedia:spam|advertising]] and promoting non-notable material. Which in itself would be viewed as and covered by [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement]]--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Weak keep'''. At least one [[WP:RS|reliable source]] is already present, and a quick Googling finds  at least a couple more good sources. [[User:TenPoundHammer|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;">Ten&nbsp;Pound&nbsp;Hammer</span>]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;<sup>((([[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Broken&nbsp;clamshells]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otter&nbsp;chirps]])))</sup> 18:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
+:*'''Comment''', I dont think that having short summary on a commercial website fulfills [[WP:BOOK]]. WP:BOOK states that the book must be subject to "multiple, non-trivial published works" - its doesnt, OR "won a major literary award" - its hasnt, OR "made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture" it isnt, OR "subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities" - not to my knowledge OR finally "book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources" - altough the authors are know they do not fall into this category. Therefore I am leaning towards '''delete''' until there is more references added that go beyond either a summary in a commercial website or we find an indepth analysis of its contents in a maintstream reliable source.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)