Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tyranny of the Market


 * 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   speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Obviously the article needs much expansion--and I;d suggest writing an article on the author, who has done other work also.  DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tyranny of the Market

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

A book written by a non-notable professor of a University. It doesn't meet the criteria of Notability (books). - Warthog Demon  03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominator withdraws nomination - Usually I'm very good with Google searches. And even though I did google search for sources and for books that referenced this book, somehow I didn't find them. No idea how I missed them, but the below editors have found them. This is clearly notable, so I withdraw the nomination. - Warthog Demon  19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep By adding the author's last name to a Google search, I readily found many reviews, plus this book has been cited in at least two more recent books. The book is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As have I, at least in terms of finding reviews. However, from what I've read in Notability (books), it doesn't make this article notable unless the reviews have shown that the book has made a significant contribution to a form of mass media or movement. Could you show me the two books where this book has been cited though? I didn't see them when I google-searched, so I must have missed them. - Warthog Demon  04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comment A book only needs to meet one of the five criteria to be considered notable. You are requiring two criteria, WarthogDemon. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think you maybe be under the impression that I'm disagreeing with you, which I'm not. You've said I made a mistake so I'm now trying to find the books it has been sourced in. I'm not requiring two criteria, only one. What I was saying was that while I don't see how the review criteria works, being cited in several books obviously does, like you said. The only thing I'm asking is what books have used this as a source? I'm usually brilliant with Google searches but the books elude me. If you can help me find the books and verify my mistake, I'll immediately withdraw my nomination. :) - Warthog Demon  04:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not saying you've made a mistake, instead I am pointing out the policy interpretations I am relying on. Here are three recent books that reference this particular book:
 * Principles of Economics, by N. Gregory Mankiw
 * Financial Ethics: Critical Issues in Theory & Practice, by John R. Boatright
 * Information and public choice: from media markets to policy making, by Roumeen Islam
 * Sorry these aren't complete references, but I am sure that Google books will furnish all the information you need. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If a book has been the subject of in-depth, multiple, independent newspaper articles or reviews in reliable publications, then, by that criteria alone, it will be assumed to be notable by that single criteria. That is the most common criteria by which books qualify for notability. It is not necessary that a book fulfill more than one of the five listed criteria.  I appreciate your wish to be stringent, but we need not be too stringent. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability (or not) of an author does not affect the notability of a book. A book can be notable even if the author has not yet achieved the threshold of notability under WP:BLP. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These reviews satisfy WP:BK criterion 1:. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (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.