Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails to meet the criteria at Notability (books). These criteria are further analyzed under #Academic and technical books, whose suggested criteria are not met. If every academic book that gets a book review in an academic journal were considered notable, then there would be several tens of thousands books each year that are wiki-worthy, even though they might only ever be read by a few academics.  Ergo Sum  19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Going by the criteria at Notability (books), this book is published by a major academic press and Worldcat lists it as being held by 845 libraries and also lists a dozen or so reviews of the book. This is not just a "book that gets a book review in an academic journal". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the nominator has misunderstood WP:TEXTBOOKS, reading it as imposing further requirements on academic books when in fact it's intended as a loosening of the WP:BKCRIT requirements in order to, as it says, mitigate against situations where the latter "would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice". In this case the less restrictive guideline is irrelevant because (as the nominator seems to acknowledge) WP:BKCRIT is met, but is Phil Bridger points out, so is WP:TEXTBOOKS. I agree with the nominator that it's probably not desirable that "every academic book that gets a book review in an academic journal [be] considered notable", but in this case there's not just one book review but at least six –, , , , , – clearly constituting significant coverage in independent reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, multiple sources that review this book, as listed above .... and why was this article prodded twice? (says coola who wonders whether the nominator, as such an experienced editor, needs to be trouted or at least minnowed). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it had been proposed once before. Added the two talk page templates once I noticed.  Ergo Sum  01:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks:) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Looks as if it clearly passes notability guidelines to me. — Hunter Kahn 04:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep most likely meets NBOOK. Tessaracter (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from the reviews cited above, we can also add to that the East Oregonian and the Portland Mercury . Missvain (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2020 (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.