Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City


 * 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.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City

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

Non-notable book, which I cannot find anything reliable on google. Page orphaned and has no context. Authour fails WP:BIO Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. No assertion of notability. Not every book needs a WP entry. WP is not Books in Print. eaolson (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple reviews of the book from academic journals show up on the very first page of google results for "Crisis in the Built Environment"; it thus passes the primary notability criterion. In general I think authors of notable books are presumed to be notable and so Jamel Akbar and this article could stand alone, but if this is his only notable work, I wouldn't object to merging the book article into his bio article.
 * --- Cheers, cab (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete 19 GS references for a book, and only one or two reviews in specialised journals, is routine, not notable, for an academic book. 130 Libraries in worldcat; respectable, a perfectly good book to count towards someone's notability but not individually significant. DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have it exactly backwards. Reviews of a book in journals (specialized or otherwise) can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book. It is less clear how those reviews can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book's author. So the book may not "count towards" Akbar's notability, but the reviews cited by cab do demonstrate the book's notability. 152.3.246.246 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cab. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cab. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep cab's got it right. OptimistBen (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per cab. Atyndall93  |  talk  03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage in independent reliable sources demonstrates notability. -- Beloved Freak  16:03, 20 April 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.