Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book)


 * 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Famine (book)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Notability (books). It could also be judged to be advertising and promoting non-notable material. Which in itself would be viewed as and covered by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement--Domer48 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. At least one reliable source is already present, and a quick Googling finds at least a couple more good sources.  Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete since even author of page claims non-notability. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I dont think that having short summary on a commercial website fulfills WP:BOOK. WP:BOOK states that the book must be subject to "multiple, non-trivial published works" - its doesnt, OR "won a major literary award" - its hasnt, OR "made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture" it isnt, OR "subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities" - not to my knowledge OR finally "book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources" - altough the authors are know they do not fall into this category. Therefore I am leaning towards delete until there is more references added that go beyond either a summary in a commercial website or we find an indepth analysis of its contents in a maintstream reliable source.--Vintagekits 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Article creator here, says that the book in itself is not notable, "Far from it".Regards--Domer48 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on the grounds that it is a work by a notable writer (two of them, actually), and as such plays an important role in interpreting that writer's personal creative vision. FlamingSpear 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would refer to again to Notability (books), and previous comment, by the articles creator. The book in itself is not notable. --Domer48 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Therefore, these non-trivial reviews are enough to establish notability. Paxse 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability guidelines for books, as correctly stated. One Night In Hackney  303  15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:N, may become notable in future.--Vintagekits 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added links to two reviews in decent publications - New Statesman and Socialist Review. Apparently it was also in the London Review of Books - but can't find that online. Here are links to two sites showing the book is part of the reading list for undergraduate courses at the University of Aberdeen and University of Adelaide . Without selective quoting Notability (books) criteria one says a book may be notable when...
 * Comment I was unable to locate any mention in the two links provided, and those on the article page one being a commercial site would not constitute notability, i.e. “multiple non-trivial published works”. Again, the creator of the article has quite succinctly stated that the book its self is not notable, “the definitive, or best book on the Famine. Far from it, actually.” ,--Domer48 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, ditto - thise links dont say anything about the book!--Vintagekits 20:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Although needs re-write to use the 3rd party reviews - there are multiple 3rd party reviews: Socialist review / New Statesman / Americamagazine that can be used. Kernel Saunters 23:09, 26 May 2007 (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.