Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution


 * 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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page does not cite any sources and the book doesn't meet WP:NB criteria. Redhat101 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sergey Bubka of NBOOK. Essential reading in multiple universities too.. Lourdes  03:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, Lourdes demonstrates that there's easily enough critical coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per the WP:BEFORE search by . Specific examples from the list above include reviews from Kirkus, The Journal of Politics and Middle Eastern Studies. North America1000 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I do not think we can have an article on every academic book published, however well reviewed. Furthermore, all we have is a rather useless stub.  In deference to those who have voted above, I am not voting delete, but if we are to keep it we need, we need a lot more about the book's argument.  Currnetly iit is not even an ADVERT.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What an odd comment: it's good that "it is not even an ADVERT." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:NOTPAPER. North America1000 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - It looks like a book with multiple independent reliable source reviews. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was and still is a stub, but stubs for notable works can always be expanded. The only time I'd argue that a work shouldn't have its own entry is if the work is already well covered in the creator's article (as in the case of biographies or authors known for only one work where the work and author haven't been the subject of a lot of coverage outside of each other) or in another suitable location. (IE, in the case of derivative works where it's substantially identical to the main work and wouldn't justify a content fork, as in the case where a coloring book edition is put out of a children's book) In this case the article can be expanded and I've gotten a little bit of it started. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, numerous reviews available online as listed above, in addition, Ebsco lists reviews in The New Yorker, America, and Harvard International Review, and this shows it was reviewed in Iranian Studies. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2017 (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.