Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reclaiming Patriotism


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reclaiming Patriotism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BK. I can't find any reliable sources to prove notability. There are several ghits for the book, but almost none of them are about the book itself - they're all about the author (mostly the footers of articles he's written). Further, the article is fairly POV and reads like a fan-site of sorts. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The author is notable, as the wikipedia page about him indicates, and that page is not proposed for deletion. Furthermore, it is the author's first and so far only book, as well as his most substantial work, which his newspaper articles are informed on. Also, the article does not read like a 'fan site': nowhere is there an endorsement of the views expressed in the book and in fact notable criticisms of the book are found after the summary of the book's contents. Apollo1986 1832:26, 5 Jun 2010 (Aust time)
 * Comment: Just because the author is notable does not mean the book is notable as well; notability is not inherited. Books have their own notability criteria, and I couldn't find any articles to match that. We could choose to redirect this article to the author's page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, this is the author's only book to date, and what he is most famous for. The book hence deserves a post of its own. Apollo1986 19:22, 6 Jun 2010 (Aust time)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Just because a notable author wrote the book does not mean it is notable. I can not find any significant coverage of the book to establish it is independently notable.  Information about the book should be included in the author's article until such time that independent sources have written about the book.   GB fan  talk 02:11, 7 June 2010 (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.