Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twice A Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey


 * 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, though as an organizational issue, until there is more information on both the book and the author, a merge is a good idea. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:48Z 

Twice A Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-fiction book that was only published last year. We can't possibly have articles on every book. This does not meet the criteria in Notability (books) and is unlikely to do so unless it becomes a standard work on the subject in years to come. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Consider merging with its author, Bruce Clark (journalist) ? Guroadrunner 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article's ability to meet the notability guidline for books is iffy (criteria 5) it is attributable and doesn't really meet the criteria for deletion. IMHO this is the type of borderline article we should be working to keep, not the latest, greatest and arguably notable Gundam battle suit. NeoFreak 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The author is international security editor of The Economist, not a particularly noted writer, so I really don't think even criterion 5 applies. He's probably worthy of an article, but all his publications aren't. Attributable does not automatically equal notable. Are you suggesting we should have articles on every book ever written? They're all attributable! Effectively this is advertising for a very recent book that has not yet established its place in history. Bear in mind that Wikipedia does not consider most academics to be notable, and if they're not then their works generally aren't, so why should this particular book be notable just because it's written by a journalist? -- Necrothesp 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with author. Given the newness of the book, this article can be little more than a book review. The author's article needs clean-up, but that I think should probably be kept in accordance with NeoFreak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eldereft (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 *  Merge , with author. At this point it would be challenging WP:CRYSTAL if one tries to establish the notability of this book. This article can be recreated once there are enough second party sources about the book Alf Photoman  12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Black Falcon Alf Photoman  00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not thrilled with the merging, myself, as this sort of kind of rewards the page rank pumping by creating a redirect, which counts as a link on a top-50 website.  Utgard Loki 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed w/ Utgard Loki. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per NeoFreak. Non-fiction book, not self published (I think).--Hobit 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * guess you thought right, published by Harvard University Press. Alf Photoman  20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - just because we can't have an article on every book, doesn't mean we should not have one on this book. I found it interesting. Trollderella 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Trollderella is correct, can't does not mean shouldn't. David Spart 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the following reviews in the Daily Telegraph, the New York Times, and The Guardian, and multiple others like this one review by the Council of Foreign Relations and this. I will add all of these reviews into the article as "External links" and incorporate them into the text over the course of the next few days.  -- Black Falcon 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sourcing found by User:Black Falcon.-- danntm T C 05:46, 4 March 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.