Talk:A field guide to the birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion discussion prompted by speedy tag[edit]

Sorry, this doesn't meet the criteria for speedy (or any other form of) deletion.

Criterion 2 "The book has been the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" is easily met

I note that the nominator cites "lack of notability" as a problem, but this is addressed in the article's first paragraph.

SP-KP 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

well, try to convince that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). simply because it has an isbn doesn't mean it's noable. and remember, this is't personal . also how does the first paragraph prove anything? thanks. hope to hear from you soon.--Tainter 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not clear on why you suggest that the reason cited for notability is that the book has an ISBN as I didn't say that above or in the article or in the message on your talk page notifying you of the contested deletion.

To repeat what I said above, the book has been the subject of "multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources". The first paragraph's last sentence is the relevant one regarding this book's other reason for notability. SP-KP 17:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you still haven't proven anything. Show me the reliable reviews and/or sources. Claims aren't sources. --Tainter 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If not deleted then at least this article needs to be renamed to its actual title: A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific (note capitalization). --Tainter 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can verify the existence of one such review here:

Happy to look out some more, but hopefully this is enough to persuade you that I'm not making groundless claims?

I based my capitalisation on that given in the book's Library of Congress record, but no I've got no strong opinion on this, so no objection if you wanted to do something different. SP-KP 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty I don't really car about this article enough to continue this conversation. I will thouhg nominate it for renaming. A lot of the searches I have done have the forementioned capitalizatio, and I think it just looks better. --Tainter 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)