Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taken by Storm


 * 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. Reasonable arguments on both sides, all of which are basically judgement calls about the quality of the references. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taken by Storm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to have made a significant enough splash in independent, secondary sources to justify its own article. The content can be discussed at its author's bio, Ross McKitrick. The article as it is now (and has been for several years) is just 2 promotional blurbs. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found three reviews, two of which are in peer-reviewed journals. It also seems to be mentioned or used as a source in some academic work like this and this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep two reviews in academic journals meets WP:BKCRIT. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be relevant to note that when I edited Ross McKitrick to use what I felt was neutral language: He has authored works in the field of climate change, the nominator posted on the talk page Regarding this edit, I don't see the sources in any way supporting that Ross McKitrick publishes works in the field of climate change.. If this book is disappeared, it will help support the contention that he hasn't written in the field.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? His article explicitly discusses this book in the lead and body. I'm suggesting that we move coverage of the book to his bio, instead of having a whole separate article. How would that obscure anything in his bio?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for that discussion — I responded on your talk page-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence this is really a notable book. Worlcat shows 172 holdings, which is not very great for a popular book on this topic,.  DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and perhaps redirect to Ross McKitrick' because at least he currently has an article....as for this article, I only found some passing mentions at News, Books, browsers and Higheam. Not much for a better article, SwisterTwister   talk  05:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Delete - After further review, I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Thparkth (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Jonathan A Jones.  The references added by Tokyogirl79 indicate a level of notability sufficient to meet Notability (books).  If it is decided that the book doesn't warrant its own page, a redirect to the author's biography should be left in its place.  Edgeweyes (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Tokyogirl79's sources show that this book meets WP:BKCRIT. clpo13(talk) 18:41, 2 December 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.