Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth Under Fire
Appearance
- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Earth Under Fire (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)
Prod removed, from non-notable book. Coverage is all from book sales websites or conspiracy theory websites with little or no evidence of peer review, thus failing reliable sources. Can't find a signicant enough coverage in something that would pass our WP:RS requirements. Sadads (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Even though I have been around Wikipedia for a while (and this is my first post in several years), I am new to the idea the of "notable book." I get notability, but I have not heard until now of its application to books. -- RayBirks
- Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Google searches reveal that it's on sale at Amazon.com, and that's pretty much it. No independent results returned on a Google Scholar search. I don't think this made any impact, nor does it seem to have gotten any reviews in the obvious places. It shouldn't have been deprodded. A {{trout}} to the person who did that and added a citation to Goodreads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.