Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla


 * 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) — UY Scuti Talk  19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a very noteworthy/notable book. Claims of multiple editions and translations may have some validity, but all the reprints I found since 1995 are by minor publishers 9https://books.google.com/books?id=TyLRAwAAQBAJ],, ) and, increasingly, by outfits like [Lulu https://books.google.com/books?id=dt-BAgAAQBAJ] and Kessinger. Google Books proves a few mentions in other books but those don't even cite the book, they just list it. I'm not going to take this citation as evidence of much, given the source. Now, JSTOR offers a bit more: this overview of the "White ethnic experience" (yes) gives it two sentences, this review of a 1964 biography mentions it (with no detail), and this 2003 review of yet another book on Tesla says it's a well-known biography. But that's it--I really don't see enough evidence that this book passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete Teslaphile stuff; clearly not a useful article, whether the book itself is notable or not William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, and trout the nominator with the largest and most foul-smelling piscine to be found (with a side whack for his supporter). Dear God. Did no one notice that the book's author won the Pulitzer Prize for his science journalism, and that this book is a serious and substantive book in that field? That's one hell of a lot more important than noting who reprinted it sixty years after it was published. Obviously nobody bothered to check the Google Scholar search results, showing many cites (under multiple forms of the title/author name). It took me 38 goddamn seconds to turn up a lengthy and favorable review in the Sunday Times Book Review, pretty much the gold standard for establishing notability of a US book, for February 4, 1945. Not so complete a fail as the recent attempt to delete a very, very well-known Doris Lessing novel, but a worse-than-routine embarrassment for our claim to be a serious encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I added the NY Times book review, and will try to find a few more RS. LaMona (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - don't agree that winning a Pulitzer means all your books are automatically notable, but the NY Times review and this review are enough to establish notability, in my opinion. The fact that the book is still in print is also a very strong sign the book is notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, evident from above reviews mentioned and these (some short but sweet:)): from Common Ground of Spring 1945 - "This man died in obscurity, his life a riddle and his fame insecure. O'Neill, who knew him intimately, gives the reasons in this brilliant study of the person and his work.",  from The Saturday Review of Literature of Dec 9, 1944 - "John O'Neill has beautifully painted that strange and lonely man. And If he has sat too close to him to give the portrait depth and background, it is none the less a fine likeness and perhaps a great picture as well.", and  from Kirkus Reviews - " All in all, the discussion of his work in electricity, the principles behind his system of power transmission, his discoveries in the rotating magnetic field, and numerous other contributions make him an instrument in many phases of our physical existence today.". Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 10 November 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.