Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book. Does not belong in the encyclopedia until it gains a level of fame or notoriety. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. See references. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has more than attained notability needed for WP:BK. Also, scholarly reviews. Not present does not mean non-existent. StarM  01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the notability requirements per WP:BK . Realised it's not a "book". WWGB (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. This book is marginally notable at best and the information should be merged into Clive Hamilton. There is really no need for a separate article, even if it was definitely notable. Does everyone of the Quarterly Essays, splendid as they are, deserve a separate article? I think not. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Or merge to the article on the author, briefly.. Though published separately, they are just pamphlets, under 100 pages long. And I see zero scholarly review in those GoogleS hits, just a handful of citations or inclusion on lists. Similarly for all of the other ones here that are not actually book, but articles. The standard of notability for a single article of this sort is and should be extremely high. We do not include every article that gets cited by 2 other articles--that's about a million a year or so. I know I always say not paper, but this is in my opinion beyond ridiculous. The standard for an individual essay of this sort should be something like landmark or classic. DGG (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have an issue of the Quarterly Essay in front of me and it is certainly more than "just a pamphlet". I would call it a monograph. Johnfos (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Star Mississippi. Has notable coverage. INTGAFW (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (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.