Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Books That Changed the World

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12 Books That Changed the World[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article since 2007. Also fails a before search as i found little coverage of this book, and pretty much all of the sources i found were not particularly authoritative. Nothing that makes this book more notable than, say, 100 Books that Changed the World or Books That Changed History: From the Art of War to Anne Frank's Diary. The helper5667 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm finding some coverage - it looks like this book was the focus of some controversy when it released, as it was criticized for focusing predominantly on works published by white men, a couple of white women, and solely on those put out by the British. I'll continue to add what I find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm starting to hit more paywalls that I can't get past, so I'm going to go ahead and post based on what I've found so far. It looks like this book gained a lot of criticism when it was released, enough to where it looks like it passes NBOOK. It could be better and I'd absolutely suggest making this an article for both the book and the accompanying four part TV series, but it passes on NBOOK alone. From what I can see, it looks like the book was the one that gained the most attention of the two, in any case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. looks like someone added bunch of sources after nomination. Nominator should so a better check before nominating. It passes notability. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'd give them a pass on this one. A lot of these weren't easily visible via a Google search. I found most via Newspapers.com, but it took some finetuning and if you don't have access to their offerings you won't be able to see what they have. I can see where someone may not find these in a WP:BEFORE. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There are 10 refs, of which 8 are newspapers that are definitely RS per RSP. Unfortunately, most are behind a paywall, but I am confident that this easily meets GNG. Thanks for cleaning this up! VickKiang (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.