Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasmania's Wilderness Battles


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tasmania's Wilderness Battles

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete. Non-notable book. May also have contributor copyright issues. Contested prod and there is a bit of a discussion at User_talk:Alan_Liefting -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think there may be copyvios, and from where do you think they came? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here: Contributor copyright investigations/20120412 02 02:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, at this point that's just a raw list of that user's contributions, which the copyvio investigation hasn't gotten up to yet. There's nothing in the raw list to say there is or isn't a copyright violation. In any case, the last version edited by that user  is so basic that any copyvio problem would be easily solved by simple rewriting -- so I think that "contributor copyright issues" can be set aside as a cause of concern for this particular article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I restored the article after reading the conversation at Alan's talk page, and interpreting half of it as a contest of the prod. There are currently no reliable or independent sources in the article. However, as I haven't done any searching for sources, I reserve judgement on notability. Lady  of  Shalott  00:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is very hard to deal with this nomination. (see lieftings talk page for part), as from where I come from there is inherent notability to the book - the stub itself was dubious self promotion, and I have little faith in alan's idea of a history of environment issues in tasmania being created in anything like encyclopediac manner in the short term...my work commitments prevent my dealing in detail with the article in the short term as well SatuSuro 01:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - added one third-party reliable source Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to note that Allen & Unwin, who published the book, is a major publisher. (Not that everything published by A&U is necessarily notable by our stanards, but it is a point in the book's favor.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept of the article is notable and sensible, we just need to avoid undue emphasis on the book of the same name. Greglocock (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is about the book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep notable book about notable events SatuSuro 02:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the events are notable but that does not mean that a book about the events is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 07:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment  I've added a Critical reception section with a couple of reviews. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep a notable book about notable events. The article is about the book not the events. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, it is an article about a book. That fact is quite clearly stated in the article. I agree that the events are notable but that does not mean that a book about the events is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – A notable book. The topic passes WP:GNG, per:
 * Ambrose, Margaret (October 1, 2008). "Book review: Tasmania's Wilderness Battles." Habitat Australia.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambrose, Margaret (October 1, 2008). "Book review: Tasmania's Wilderness Battles." Habitat Australia.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Northamerica1000. I can always rely on you to dig out some refs from all corners of the interweb! Can you by any chance help me out with researching some of my book projects?? Now surely WP:NB trumps WP:GNG and I don't think WP:NB is satisfied with the available refs (even criteria #1). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Northamerica1000.  Th e S te ve   05:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SNOW. WP:HEY, Improved to clearly show notability. duffbeerforme (talk)
 * Keep Thanks for the work on the article. And nominators, please consider WP:RFC or flagging for WP:RESCUE to improve articles. The less time we spend at AfD, the more time we have for those projects. Anarchangel (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh..... Looks like we get an article about a book that documents some very noteworthy history of Tasmania but nothing about the topic of the nook, namely Environment of Tasmania and Environmental issues on Tasmania. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the same as at the prod - you miss the point on Tasmanian history I suspect - Pedder and Franklin went well beyond environment issues, and I would argue that you would be doing Tasmania a disservice if you start those articles without drawing on a very broad literature which is the point I made at the prod issue at the talk - Green and environmental histories are usually about a lot of egoes - an encyclopediac entry with a decidedly thorough approach would require a broad understanding on Tasmanian society and history - not just BoB Brown or Buckman, there were a much more complex web of issues that require elucidating - to actually prod and argue for deletion of a part of the literature reflects a very odd way of approaching the history of the issue, if not weird SatuSuro 08:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It goes without saying that an article should be thoroughly researched and it rankles me when you suggest that I would do otherwise. Also, I find it annoying that an article about a book takes up a lot of wikitime and an article about the notable topic of the book remains absent from WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * perhaps putting up prods and afds is not the way to do it if you are so keen for such an article or two - you started them both SatuSuro 00:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please everyone, let's remain civil and do this properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I agree that the encyclopedia would benefit from articles such as Environment of Tasmania and Environmental issues of Tasmania, the lack of such articles is irrelevant to the question of whether this specific article should be kept or not. The work that has been done on the article since it was nominated has nicely clariified the situation, and it's clear now that the book easily passes our notability requirements, so there is no policy-based rationale for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is well-referenced, so the book is notable.  I have followed the relevant links above, and I have found no evidence of any copyright violation.—Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ...mutter, mumble.... Withdraw as nominator and WP:SNOW. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:02, 10 June 2012 (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.