Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System


 * 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 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System

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

Non-notable book. Is not subject to non-trivial reviews, awards, or sales. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability according to WP:NB.--Boffob (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reviews excerpted at http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780511389283 appear to indicate notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not appear to be in question, as per Eastmain's input. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and published by a top academic press, Cambridge University Press . Johnfos (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A positive review from a Pulitzer Prize for History winner convinces me of notability. Rwendland (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete' SciTech book news is not a reliable source for notability, as they are extremely non selective, see their about page. They are a useful checklist for librarians of what's been published, but that's all they intend to be and all they're good for. Their reviews are not signed, and I give them no authority whatsoever. Nor is everything published by even the best press notable--that's using Wikipedia as a DIRECTORY.  And the other review is a local one on a book of local interest. The so-called reviews at the publishers sites are not published reviews, but solicited blurbs, and have the same authority as book jacket blurbs or blurbs on amazon, which is none at all. Keep only if an actual published critical review can be found. Looking for actual 3rd party information, I see its listed in G Scholar, but without the indication that anyone ever referred to it.   It's in only 95 worldcat libraries which is not a great many considering the popular interest in the subject. DGG (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:28, 15 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.