Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon

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

No evidence this is a notable book or meets the low bar of WP:BOOKS. Prod removed because the book garnered a single book review. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,389,356. THF (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are two book reviews referenced: The Historian, Volume 70, Number 3, Fall 2008, and Environmental History, April 2008. So the book meets WP:Notability (books) because "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." Johnfos (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Book is listed in different academic libraries including Princeton, Columbia and Brown, 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - How can that possibly be the notability standard? There are one million books in the Princeton University Library: is it your position that each of them merit a Wikipedia article? THF (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BK: Academic books "are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick." --J.Mundo (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You didn't answer my question. 2) You left out the relevant part of that paragraph from WP:BK: "Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions." This is an academic press, so, ok, we'll ignore the lack of sales and the fact that it is on remainder. What's your evidence for the relevant criterion other than its presence in a library with a million volumes? Saying that it's one of the million books Princeton put in its library is hardly evidence of notability. THF (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This book got in the list of 196 libraries, it seems notable to me. If the book meets the criteria for inclusion for Princeton, why not Wikipedia? --J.Mundo (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * speaking as a former librarian there, what one library buys is not the standard. Princeton buys as many books as it has money for; while not infinite, they will still not all be notable. DGG (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wellock, Thomas. 2008. "Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon - By John Wills". The Historian. 70, no. 3: 565-566]. That last point is enough to justify the article. Using amazon to judge the notability of academic books, either to show them notable or to show then non-notable, is not a good way of doing things; instead, try WorldCat. DGG (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThe standard is what many libraries buy, and the about 200 academic libraries that have bought it would have bought it because 1/it is on an important subject of current itnerest 2/it is by a reliable academic press, 3/ it has at least three major book reviews, Righter, R. W. 2007. "Wills, Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon". JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY -BLOOMINGTON-. 94, no. 1: 346,  Herring, H. 2007. "John Wills, Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon". ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORY. 13, no. 3: 363-365, and [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/259648462&referer=brief_results
 * Keep. Book published by the University of Nevada Press, which is a significant publisher.  If this were self-published or from a non notable publisher I'd vote otherwise, but this is a keep.  Personally I don't think individual books, songs, albums, minor Star Wars characters, South Park episodes, etc should even have their own articles, but that debate was already lost long ago, so keep. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fascinating to me that we have finely detailed policies, and they're systematically ignored, even as they guarantee that the project becomes untenably unwieldly. THF (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per THF, not notable. Princeton Library is filled with millions of books, does each one deserve a Wikipedia article?WackoJacko (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage in DGG's sources meets WP:GNG.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 00:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a link repository, and Wikipedia is not a directory. For the life of me, I don't understand why people think three book reviews creates notability for a widely-ignored book where there is no evidence it meets any of the other criteria for WP:BK.  WP:GNG is necessary, not sufficient, and given the NOT violations, this doesn't even meet WP:GNG. THF (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * People think three book reviews creates notability because it satisfies criteria 1 of WP:BK: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself... This includes published works in all forms, such as...reviews. -- M P er el 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable per DGG's rationale. -- M P er el 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Three reviews meets criterion 1 of WP:BK, which asks for "one or more of the following criteria". Meeting all of the criteria is not required. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2009 (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.