Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory, and the End of an Empire

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory, and the End of an Empire[edit]

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

I see nothing to distinguish this book. It's merely a description of a sporting team/victory; admittedly, a particularly famed one, but the book on the subject does not seem to have the notability of its subject, or indeed any notability at all. Even the article cites merely the book itself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the Google News and Books links show a couple of places in which it is cited as an authoritative source on the topic, but none that are particularly strong. Appears to have reliable, independent coverage... jury's still out on non-trivial, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft. I fail to find reliable coverage of the book, such as reviews in major newspapers or publications, after a reasonable search. Of course, it may just be that I can't find it, but the burden of providing such material lies with those who have written the article. Another issue is that the article simply summarizes the book, which should be secondary in an encyclopedic article, instead it should focus on the authorship process, publication and distribution, and reception. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK. Certainly it is notable to mention on Stellick and Cox's articles that they are the authors of this book, but it does not seem to warrant a stand alone article. Reso lute 15:23, 17 May 2012 (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.