Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfinished Business: Paul Keating's interrupted revolution


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfinished Business: Paul Keating's interrupted revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about barely notable book written by notable man (but not notable author). The article was created just to justify the use of the non-free book-cover already uploaded, once it was contested. Although the book won some award, this article will never be anything past a linkfarm for positive reviews. damiens.rf 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination concedes that book is notable, but only "barely" in nominator's opinion. Our notability guideline for books says a book can be considered notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes ... reviews."  The article includes links to three solid reviews.  If the nominator thinks that the reviews were chosen selectively because they are "positive", then perhaps a more neutral and representative range of reviews could be added.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with Cullen that it meets WP:NBOOKS as it has received multiple in-depth reviews (and possibly also for the award it won). If all (or the majority) of reviews were positive, then that's what the article should represent. If there were a significant amount of negative reviews, then that should be included, but that is not an issue for AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Very marginal book. Non-notable author.  It does have three published reviews, so it barely meets the  WP:NBOOKS requirement. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (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.