Talk:Captive State (book)

Nominated for deletion
Not sure why this is being nominated for deletion? There are countless examples of similar Wikipedia book entries from a multitude of authors.... My only connection with this book is that I own a copy, so am not promoting it...

I would be interested in getting an opinion of anyone who disagrees that this article should remain up

Chill doubt


 * Delete and merge into author's page. — I cannot see a reason for an encyclopedia article on this book at this time; the book itself isn't notable. It would warrant inclusion (perhaps in reduced form) on the author's page.  Given the lack of encyclopedic content and WP:RS and notability, it appears very similar to an advertisement for the book.  jesup 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly who defines how notable a book is? Is a book by Chomsky universally decreed as notable, where as Monboit is not? On the other end of the spectrum Ayn Rand has stubs and articles on most of her books - two examples of authors pretty much at random, there are thousands more on Wikipedia.....

Chill doubt


 * Notable for books would include (multiple) non-review WP:RS mentions (more than passing mentions). Chomsky's books engender a lot of discussion in newspapers, online, in other books, conferences, etc.  Ayn Rand similarly, and also lots of popular-culture references.  But even some of their books could be non-notable (don't know if they are, but they could be).  Note that reviews of a book generally would not meet the Notable criteria.  In addition, even if notable, can the article be expanded past the 'stub' level.  If not, it's a candidate for deletion.  jesup 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Like Chomsky Monbiot's books also engender a lot of discussion in newspapers, online, in other books, conferences, etc.. In addition this book played a significant role in creating public awareness of the Skye Bridge PFI deal... which ultimately led to the government purchase of the bridge cancelling the arrangement. The book is referenced from multiple Wikipedia entries (eg Skye bridge and PFI). I accept that book reviews are not good sources for defining notability, which is why none were included as part of the article. Cheers Chill doubt


 * I'm going to remove the speedy for now, however, its possible that someone may nominate the article for deletion through another method. I would suggest finding some of those newspapers, books and conferences that have referenced this book and discussing those mentions and adding them as sources for the article. Shell babelfish 18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, that this article would benefit from more information about the book's notability, including citations of reviews from reliable published sources, or other things which would meet the qualifications in Notability (fiction) --Elonka 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To meet some of the concerns above, I have referenced this to Hansard + NHS and found a source linking to Thom Yorke of Radiohead who has mentioned this book on a few occasions to fans (+ was already mentioned on the Wikipedia entry for Radiohead) I suspect that the initial raised concern, catagorising this entry as spam (in my opinion rashly) may stem from the fact that the external link was initially to the publishers website. I have therefore found similar published web extracts of this book from the Guardian Newspaper and amended the entry accordingly. Cheers Chill doubt

As this is now referenced from Parliamentary and reliable 3rd party sources, I have removed the tag requesting refs. Hope this is OK Chill doubt

Unsourced claims
The following text has external links, none of which work. Moved to talk page so someone can find permalinks and re-add to the article.


 * This book has been referenced in a number of UK Parliamentary debates and committees, including the Select Committee on Public Administration and the Select Committee on Treasury  The concerns raised in Captive State regarding projects involving the NHS and the PFI were reflected in public consultancy debates.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)