Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book. Fails our notability guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unlike the other books you've nominated today, this one was widely advertised and reviewed, and its subject matter was the topic of a number of tie-in newspaper articles. Whilst I disagree with the book's premise, I'd be interested if you could expand one why it fails the guidelines. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in the absence of any further justification from the (very busy) nominator. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Has many third party reviews. See here. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable: non-trivial reviews here, here, and here. Johnfos (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the notability requirements per WP:BK. WWGB (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:BK. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Headed toward a snowball keep. Fails our notability guidelines.  No, it doesn't. Not closing out of respect for the nom, but seriously, this is clearly notable. StarM  02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Clive Hamilton. There is really no need for a separate article, even if it was definitely notable. Lots of books get reviews. The question should be whether they continue to get noticed. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Hesperian 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that this is perhaps the most notable of his books, as s hown by his having successfully introduced the neologism.  DGG (talk)
 * Keep, meets WP:BK and WP:N due to secondary coverage in reliable sources. Suggest that it's time to consider a Snow Keep.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Week Keep Snowball sounds a bit premature. I don't know that reviews of a book when it first came out constitute non-trivial coverage, and that is all that I have seen here.  It has, however, led to the neologism Affluenza, as DGG points out.  It's not a major one (only the Merriam Webster New Millennium dictionary has it), but that should be enough.   RJC  TalkContribs 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, The book is clearly notable.AndrewLeeson (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above. rkmlai (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2008 (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.