Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suiting Themselves


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Suiting Themselves

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

Book with no claim of notability. Sole cited review is unreadable without subscription. R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 07:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral — It was AFD'd 40 minutes after its creation. Give the article a chance. However, I cannot find anything that can establish notability of this book. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No notability established, and I'm worried that the editor who created it is making a habit of creating other articles of similar nature. It doesn't appear to strictly be a WP:COI, but it does seem to be a major interest area/agenda, and he needs to understand the rules on notability and documenting them. He has a bunch of articles linking to press releases, the books themselves, minor reviews that don't meet DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many reviews of this book, and I have added references in the article to a few more. The article satisfies Notability (books) in that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself..." Johnfos (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article itself must make the case for notability. Not the reviews.  You need to site them in making that case.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple fact of the reviews' existence makes the case for notability. Once that case has been made then anything further in the way of including information from the sources and citing them is a matter for editing, not for discussion about deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article makes the case for notability: a notable author and plenty of quality media coverage. Passes WP:RS and WP:BOOK. No problems here. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:24, 27 December 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.