Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All In: How Our Work-First Culture Fails Dads, Families, and Businesses--And How We Can Fix It Together

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 22:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All In: How Our Work-First Culture Fails Dads, Families, and Businesses--And How We Can Fix It Together[edit]

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

Non notable just-published book--worldcat shows10 libraries have placed an order, Two trivial reviews, of which one , Kirkus,has become so indiscriminating that it is unreliable. In conjunction with the article on the author (see adjacent afd) amounts to pure advertising DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I question whether the Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews would be deemed "trivial" or anything about the article is "advertising", and in any event the book is receiving more reviews even before its formal publication date. Further, the book is based in large part on an EEOC case that (as noted in this NYTimes article) is non-trivial, and (as noted in the closed Josh Levs AFD) the book itself is receiving press. The EEOC case, in which Levs prevailed, is "one of the first complaints with the EEOC alleging discrimination against fathers" (per Washington post article). Though formal publication is two weeks in the future, we're already past the point at which WP:TOOSOON would even apply. RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews from Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly are sufficient to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note That this isn't even published yet. The pub date seems to be May 12.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
defer It doesn't pass WP:GNG yet. That requires some coverage of the book in RS beyond reviews in the trade press (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly). However, given the ongoing, pre-publication publicity ABC [1], LATimes [2] It seems unreasonable to delete it now, given the amount of sourcing already there, but equally unreasonaable to decide to keep it now, when it is still possible that the book when published will fall flat. Any decision made now depends on a CYRSTAL BALL, and I have misplaced mine. Therefore I suggest we defer a decision until, say, late May, when it will very probably be a Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe our notability guidelines for books are all too easy. This is more or less promotional in intent, but it does cite multiple reviews and is well enough done as these things go. Passes the Special Notability low bar for books. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (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.