Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mormon Contribution to Alberta Politics


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Mormon Contribution to Alberta Politics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a book, published by a small specialist publishing house that has all the hallmarks of being a personal vanity press (the author of this book is credited as either the author or the subject of every single book but one in the company's entire catalogue of titles), which makes no strong claim of notability and relies almost entirely on primary sources — one of the three references is to itself, while a second is to its informational profile on Google Books. And the one reliable source that's being cited isn't coverage of the book itself, but is simply supporting a statement that a newspaper published a full 100 years before the book existed, which is in the article for quasi-promotional reasons rather than actually having anything to do with the book itself. Being able to demonstrate that a book exists isn't what gets the book into Wikipedia — references demonstrating that the book has been the subject of reliable source coverage is what gets a book an article, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. A general google search brings up nothing (in the first 100 hits anyway:)), googlenews and googlebooks brings up nothing either. (Also the article's creator may have a coi as on their userpage they state they are working for Dr Mardon (the coauthor) for the summer, and have also created/edited other Mardon articles.)Coolabahapple (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Rather like the old List of people who died with a turtle on their heads, it's a slicing of the pie into wedges that won't feed anyone. Additionally, we have likely conflicts in points of view. Book does not have notability, and the underlying issues are worrisome. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to lack of any indication the book is notable. Hithladaeus' argument has no relevance here, since the issue is not if the topic is notable, just the book about the topic. I have to say that I find it bizarre that the writer defined marriage not only to include those who had never been members of the Mormon Church but had ancestors who were, but also to include those connected to the Church by "marriage". That said, we have articles on books that are inherently flawed and incorrect, but not ones on books that do not pass notability, which this book fails to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 1 June 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.