| Revision as of 15:25, 10 October 2006 editAude (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,091 edits delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:56, 10 October 2006 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 editsm →[]: typoNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| * '''Weak delete.''' From the above discussion, it seems to me that the only serious claim to notability is the Premio Napoli, the prestigiousness of which remains unclear. The media mentions are still a bit too brief to really establish notability. ] 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | * '''Weak delete.''' From the above discussion, it seems to me that the only serious claim to notability is the Premio Napoli, the prestigiousness of which remains unclear. The media mentions are still a bit too brief to really establish notability. ] 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' not notable enough. ] is not yet agreed upon, only a proposal at this point. I have weighed in on the proposed guideline ] with my concerns that it it too inclusionist. The articles on both authors are only stubs. I think mention of this book on the authors' pages suffices. --] <small>(])</small> 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' not notable enough. ] is not yet agreed upon, only a proposal at this point. I have weighed in on the proposed guideline ] with my concerns that it it too inclusionist. The articles on both authors are only stubs. I think mention of this book on the authors' pages suffices. --] <small>(])</small> 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - suggest first five delete votes are discounted unless those users indicate they are aware of the later debate, which included new evidence. ] 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:56, 10 October 2006
The War on Freedom
Non-notable 9/11 conspiracy cruft book. I searched worldcat and could not find this book in English in the 1.3 billion items in 10,000+ libraries it searches. The Arabic translation showed up in two libraries. I could not find any reviews or mention of this book from outside the 9/11 conspiracy movement by browsing through google results for this book and its the amazon.com page. GabrielF 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Peephole 17:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hello32020 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Crockspot 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per less than 1 a billion notability. Sandy 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I find this book in 221 United States libraries on Worldcat, it has three editorial reviews at amazon.com, 29 hits at Google Scholar, three hits for a google news search and six for a google book search. Here's a review in the Missoula Independent. It was apparently one of a selection of books made available to the 9/11 Commission. It also apparently won the Naples Prize, Italy's highest literary prize, which I learned through this article from Vanity Fair and is mentioned in too many other online publications to begin to list. Thus, appears manifestly notable and meets multiple bases of inclusion listed at WP:BK. I am personally repulsed by the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense but that's not a proper basis for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If kept, the article should be moved to the full name per convention. I am betting that the nominator's lack of search results is an artifact of searches conducted using the shortened article's title, rather than the full title set forth in the text.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- You can't speedy keep after multiple delete votes have been registered. Guy 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fughettaboutit makes a good effort but he really hasn't established notability. Please note that WP:BK is a proposed guideline, not policy, and in the opinion of many it is way too inclusionist. 221 libraries out of 10,000 is still next to nothing, probably millions of books fit that criteria. I noticed the editorial reviews at Amazon, they all seem to be from within the 9/11 conspiracy community. Same with many of the google scholar hits. I see 99 books listed as those made available to the 9/11 commission - I'm guessing the national archives included every book on the subject of 9/11 in this list regardless of notability or quality. The Vanity Fair article is a one-line mention. That leaves what, the Missoula Independent? GabrielF 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per Fuhghettaboutit. He has established it meets criteria. · XP · 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per negligible Google presence and lack of objective secondary sources for an article. Can anyone point me to the reviews in the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Times? Guy 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy. Valrith 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Fuhghettaboutit makes it quite clear that it is infact quite notable. How can people vote delete after seeing the links he posted? AmitDeshwar 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because I'm dense enough that its notability still isn't at all clear to me. GassyGuy 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. And many label me a deletionist! If any of you think WP:BK is too inclusionist, please drop by the talk page and make some suggestions. We have been struggling against a tide of inclusionists railing that the criteria are too stringent and suffer from a lack of feedback. Okay, back to the matter at hand. Discounting everything else I posted, the Vanity Fair article, while it is not a detailed treatment of the book itself, is a very reliable source indicating that the book won Italy's highest literary prize. Do you dispute the reliability of that fact? If not, isn't a book which wins a country's most prestigious literary prize notable on that basis alone? In any case, as for more reliable sources, how does England's Guardian Unlimited strike you. In that article they indicate that Gore Vidal's essay, Dreaming War is an overview of this book and quote him referring to it.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Guardian piece appears to be a letter to the editor. Gore Vidal is himself notable but the sources that he uses are not necessarily so. GabrielF 12:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN--MONGO 11:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Emeraude 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG. In spite of what's been said, the Premio Napoli is not "Italy's highest literary prize" (that's the Strega I believe). See Category:Italian literary awards and the Italian version for a list of prestigious awards, no Premio Napoli there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Fuhgettaboutit's !vote and comment above. --Storkk 14:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep I'm not too keen on the 9/11 conspiracy content but Fugh makes a strong argument that it indeed meets the WP:BK criteria which I helped shape! Pascal.Tesson 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Violates WP:BK. Morton devonshire 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. From the above discussion, it seems to me that the only serious claim to notability is the Premio Napoli, the prestigiousness of which remains unclear. The media mentions are still a bit too brief to really establish notability. Sandstein 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable enough. WP:BK is not yet agreed upon, only a proposal at this point. I have weighed in on the proposed guideline talk page with my concerns that it it too inclusionist. The articles on both authors are only stubs. I think mention of this book on the authors' pages suffices. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - suggest first five delete votes are discounted unless those users indicate they are aware of the later debate, which included new evidence. Carcharoth 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)