Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable


 * 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.  E LIMINATOR JR  TALK  23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

One of many hundreds of thousand of books published each year. No case made for notability (author not himself considered notable enough for a page.) Formulafiftypoet 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep, WP:POINT, ban user. Article is a tiny stub, "What Is Your Dangerous Idea" included a lot of very good interviews on important modern thinkers including (if I recall) Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Containing text written by notable people does not make a book notable; you should make an argument as to why the book itself is notable. Please assume good faith. Formulafiftypoet 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble assuming good faith given your contribution history (or lack thereof). It seems you may be upset by Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Smith_%28poet%29. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, considering many placed an opinion of "delete" on that discussion, including myself. Slartibartfast1992 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * speedy keep This is definitely not "one of many hundreds of thousands of books published each year" and in fact, the closest thing to the author in this type of book (editor) has an article: John Brockman (literary agent). I may have created this article when I had little knowledge of guidelines, but I now understand these and will acquire references for it notability in the near future. I also know, thanks to these, that this book is indeed notable. Slartibartfast1992 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, notable authors/contributors. --Eyrian 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is insufficient reason to keep an article on a book . Formulafiftypoet 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am a bit confused by the arguments given above. The guideline applicable to this article is WP:BK. Could you specify more in detail which of its criteria you think this book fulfills? Why do these justify a "speedy keep" (i.e. terminating the AfD process prematurely)? --B. Wolterding 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * has been creating a boatload of AfD's recently after having an article of his, Jessica Smith (poet), listed on AfD, so they believe he's simply trying to prove a point. Whether or not he is, and whether or not this article should be deleted or speedy kept as a result, I don't know. Morgan Wick 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad has left me concerned for WP:POINT as well, but I can't exactly see what the dispute is and won't get into it. There is a point about there being a lack of notability here as the nom said, so I say weak delete unless more sources and material about the author himself can be made along with the book. -WarthogDemon 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment A Review from News & Observer. Also, edge.org (who were associated with the publishing of the book somehow) had "Danger – brilliant minds at work...A brilliant book: exhilarating, hilarious, and chilling. (The Evening Standard (London))" as one of their reviews.
 * Other review kickers they use are: "A selection of the most explosive ideas of our age." Sunday Herald "Provocative" The Independent "Challenging notions put forward by some of the world’s sharpest minds" Sunday Times "A titillating compilation" The Guardian "Reads like an intriguing dinner party conversation among great minds in science" Discover.
 * So, given reviews in the Independent, Evening Standard, Discover, the Guardian and Sunday Times, I have to assume that it meets criterion 1 in WP:BK. If you agree, and if you also note that this AfD's nom went on an AfD-nomination spree to prove a WP:POINT, then you'll hopefully conclude that this is a speedy keep. Unfortunately there's not that much content in this Wikipedia article right now, but considering there's also a large number of online interviews (with Pinker and Dawkins and so on) that are related to this book, this can become a good article if we let the creator Slartibartfast1992 take care of it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep attracted large amounts of media attention when it was first released. JulesH 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypersonic Keep has been reviewed all over the place, author/contributors notable... I mean this has all that notability requires! I simply cannot phantom why people argue for deletion.--Cerejota 15:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite showing up in 203 libraries according to Worldcat and thus falling under the exlusionary criteria at Notability (books), finding reliable third party reviews of the book has proven difficult. Unfortunately, the established notability of an author does not make for a notable book published by them; not automatically, that is. The book has several things going for it that do establish some slight notability, though none that are included in the strict crtieria at WP:BK. The publisher and author is notable, as are some of those interviewed. For this to be kept, current guidelines must first be changed. I happen to think the criteria is far too strict, but that is just me. I am considering proposing changes at WP:BK to the criteria on the project's talk page. So delete per guidelines, unless more than one reliable and noteworthy third party review and/or critical commentary on the work can be produced as a reference. Then i will happily change my vote to keep, per current guidelines. A case where I don't even agree with my own vote. (Mind meal 23:36, 25 July 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.