Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hurricane Code

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. TigerShark (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurricane Code[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Self published book. Only independent sources are a couple of local papers who have written about it based on a local interest angle due to the book's setting. Not seeing the sort of coverage that a truly notable book should have to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: unlike some of our WP:SNGs, WP:NB isn't interested in whether coverage is local or national in scope, so the Hometown Source, Telegraph Herald and Bleeding Heartland sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might add the topic covered in the book is not regional, but global in nature with extensive sections on Europe, New Zealand and South America regarding possible effects of extreme climate change. This seems to me a notable topic at this time. Doctoroe (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you associated with this book or its author in some way? MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have only read the book. Don't know the author personally. I have read and researched on climate extensively. Doctoroe (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This book has been featured in at least two month long book discussion groups on Goodreads. Also, the information is correct I say as a trained Climate Reality Leadership corps volunteer (Al Gore’s organization) ——- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:80:9C70:40B3:BEF0:A1:997F (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local coverage apart, the book fails at WP:BKTS, "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability.". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage that it's received that would count towards notability looks to be the Telegraph Herald. I did find a review with the Midwest Book Review, but it's unusable because it was written after they turned to a pay to play profit model where they only post positive reviews - in other words, the signs point towards it being a positive review mill. Not as bad as say, Reader's Favorite, but still problematic when it comes to it being reliable, independent, and neutral. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Newspapers in Minnesota is also an edited newspaper, print and web. Bleeding Heartland is an edited blog for Iowa. Doctoroe (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not true Midwest Books pays for reviews and they have no star rating system. I wrote the review for The Hurricane Code. I write for MBR and have for years as a volunteer - see also the Midwest Book Review page on Wikipedia —— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:80:9C70:40B3:BEF0:A1:997F (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the Midwest Books Review page on WP that has a great big "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." tag on it? That one? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2022 (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.