Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals, Property, and the Law


 * 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 speedy keep Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Animals, Property, and the Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an awkward one: Were there any secondary sources backing the claims for notability, I wouldn't dream of nominating this. However, the only sources stating a claim of notability are primary ones, and I can't find good sources to back them up. This is a problem, of course, as anyone can claim uniqueness of their book within their book itself. That said, I'm quite open to being convinced otherwise, but we'd actually need the sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites independent reviews of the book in the The Washington Post, the Houston Journal of International Law, and The Federal Lawyer. I did a google search and I found citations in this book and this book, among others. Therefore, I think this book passes the first notability criterion of WP:NBOOK. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good start, though I'd like to see the reviews, if possible, to properly judge them and their detail. But the book cites are pushing this towards keep for me. I suppose that we can't expect 90s books to have all their reviews online, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you have access to HeinOnline, I think you can access the reviews in the law journals (see, e.g., this link for the HJIL review). If you type the name of this book into Google Scholar, you can see that it is often cited in legal scholarship (see, e.g., this, this, and this), though "being widely cited in a field" is not one of the criteria listed at WP:NBOOK. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per ; there are multiple independent WP:RS for the book, including the reviews in the Further reading section (and the source at the end of the Notes section). The lack of direct citation, except of the book itself, is an unrelated problem (but still a problem), and the claim to be "the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights", citing the foreword, isn't the basis of its notability: WP:GNG is, which it clearly passes. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite happy for this to be Speedy kept at this point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2015 (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.