Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Without Glory (2015 book)

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. While an argument could be made for a No consensus closure, those arguing to Keep this article have brought forth reviews that satisfy our notability standards for books. If there is a concern about COI editing, a discussion on that issue can occur on the article talk page or at COIN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power Without Glory (2015 book)[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)

I'm not convinced that this in any way meets the notability criteria for books. I only did a web search because it's a fairly recent book and that should produce good enough sources, but all I found was a review from the Victorian Historic Racing Register, which just ain't gonna cut it. The article was added by Tsrwright, the book's author, starting with this edit to the page about the notable novel with the same title, before it was split off later (also see this editor assistance request). I found out about this situation after the author contacted me because they were caught up in an IP block I'd performed. Graham87 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your research didn't go too far, Graham. The book is covered in depth in the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com. It received an Award of Distinction 2016 from the Society of Automotive Historians. It was shortlisted for the UK Motoring Book of the Year awards 2106. It had numerous favourable reviews by the journals of record as listed at the above website.

The unannounced blocking of my log-in to Wikipedia for some years and the new proposal to delete mention of my book Power Without Glory ... was and would be unsatisfactory. Power Without Glory.... was the product of years of research and is the definitive account of its subject.

On the other hand I must point out that Wikipedia has many errors contributed by people who must have done little or no research. It should not be thumbing its nose at genuine contributors. Tsrwright (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, appreciate the desire to improve Wikipedia. Before making further edits to that article, you likely want to review our conflict of interest guidelines. Also if you like, take a look at the guidelines for reliable sources that we use to construct articles. If you can point us to further independent, reliable sources, such as professional reviews, it will aid in keeping this article. I would suggest not adding them to the article yourself due to the apparent conflict of interest. —siro χ o 06:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsrwright: You said that Graham's research 'didn't go too far', without providing any sources to show that Power Without Glory does actually meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Can you provide sources that you think meet one of these guidelines? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an in-depth review from a magazine (Dixon, Mark, and David Lillywhite. 2016. Power without glory: Racing the big-twin cooper. Octane. [1]) —siroχo 06:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not as in-depth as it first appears; that book is the first of eight to appear in that review, which can be accessed through The Wikipedia Library (neither of the others have articles ... though one of the authors there who specialises in books about racing, Tom Rubython, does have a page here ... so does Brian Sewell, though he's better known as an art critic). We just tend to be more likely to have articles about authors than their non-fiction books ... except in cases like Guns, Germs, and Steel. Graham87 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The ProQuest link I provided (also accessible through TWL) is 416 words dedicated to this subject, I believe it's the same review as the one in the first image you linked in your next comment. —siro χ o 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As for reviews of the book, the publisher's website has this and this. Being book of the month in Octane is the best of a bad bunch for asserting notability on Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Via your links, I saw [2] which has at 2 or 3 more reviews that would count towards GNG
  1. This in-depth review from The Automobile. [3][4].
  2. This in-depth review in Speedscene,[5] author is credited as "JS", probably credited at the start of the review section or on the masthead.
  3. This in-depth review by David Moore, publication unknown [6].
  There was also a review from VSCC Bulletin [7] that notes the author is a member of the club. It's probably usable in the article but may not be independent for our purposes.
  
  —siro χ o 08:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BOOKCRIT.C1 / GNG. Based on the above comments, we have two or more independent reviews in magazines with SIGCOV:
1. Octane ([8] or [9])
2. The Automobile ([10] and [11])
3. Speedscene ([12]).

—siro χ o 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reception section and reworked the article a bit based on the reviews above. Should be in a better state now. —siro χ o 08:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly ... surprised and kinda shocked with the precedent this kind of !vote sets. So all you need to do is write a book about a super-niche subject, get it reviewed favourably in a few specialty publications about said subject that are by no means of general interest, and, hey presto, it's on Wikipedia? This goes strongly against general precedent and just the general sense of coverage I get by reading other book articles in Category:Australian non-fiction books. To put it another way: if this book is kept, there are thousands of others that could plausibly get articles here that I'd never think to write about in a million years. OK I'll shut up now, but I couldn't let this go uncommented ... Graham87 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the reasonable requirement that people do not write their own reviews I submit that the entry should stand, or someone else write it because it is not a review, it is only a statement of fact. The title chosen was a play with the title of a book which was called 'The Power and the Glory which was about grand prix racing cars - the cars I was writing about had lots of power for their weight but didn't have any glory. That left me with a title which was the same an Australian novel of no particular merit by Frank Hardy which does have space on Wikipedia. There I wrote a short footnote explaining that there was another book with the same title and it was about Cooper racing cars. They-who-must-be-obeyed objected and deleted my footnote so I wrote a short separate entry. I feel Wikipedia should provide in some way for their being ,multiple books with the same title. I must have a look- how it deals with The Power and the Glory. Tsrwright (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are numerous entries for 'The Power and the Glory' including such as The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album). If a rock album could be listed then so should a well researched, award winning book. Tsrwright (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Wikipedia mentions the TV series The Power and the Glory but not the book. Tsrwright (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that helps Tsrwright (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tbat helps TW

h Tsrwright (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you delete stuff? Tsrwright (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album) has much better sourcing from much more commonly used sources on Wikipedia than this book does and probably ever will. Graham87 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a few books with this name (the short name at least, as in the title of the article here). I can't find ANY reviews of this book about racing cars, most are for an Australian book. There appears to be one listed already in the article, seems fine. The others don't have a url so I can't evaluate them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Urls are higher up in this discussion. —siro χ o 15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention National Library of Australia Doug butler (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The National Library of Australia aims to contain pretty much every book published in the country. Graham87 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence irrelevant ? Doug butler (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand this bit of the discussion. The book is catalogued in publication by the Australian National Library and a copy is held there. It is listed on Worldcat at https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3APower+without+glory&limit=10&offset=11

There are copies in a number of libraries around the world. As previously noted it was favourably reviewed by the significant journals in its field, The Automoblile and Octane. Copies of these and other reviews appear on the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com but you do have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the home page .to find them but that doesn't take too long

I don't understand how there can be a vote for delete simply because one person can't find all the reviews. Perhaps the problem lies with this not being a subject of interest to some of the people here. Anyway, there is a Loose Fillings article on line that lists some of the other reviews dated 03/12/2015 such as the following

John Staveley in The Bulletin of the Vintage Sports Car Club

On first opening this heavy, well produced book it immediately becomes apparent that it is … a vibrant story of motor racing starting before the turn of the twentieth century but quickly moving on to post World War 2 airfield circuits.

… an important work, written in an entertaining style, beautifully illustrated and great value. What a good book! Highly recommended.

Doug Nye, author of Cooper Cars on the Nostalgia Forum (an Autocar online forum)

… here’s a beautifully-designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history—really well worth the money. Respect!

He has spread his remit to cover the entire background story of small capacity competition cars after much diligent research, and deals with the nativity of the 500cc movement itself in really interesting depth. I rate it as an important, hefty, and good looking addition to any real motor sport enthusiast’s book shelf.

John Medley, author of Bathurst – Cradle of Australian Motor Racing in The Oily Rag

This is a marvellous book. You should buy it. It is filled with fascinating detail, a clear story line, broad and deep in its history and humanity, astonishing in its memorabilia and automobiliana, the author’s research and footnoting a model for other writers, the author’s hands-on experience in the field impeccably unmatched … The book is well produced, thoughtfully designed, and too heavy to read in bed.

David Moore, Shelsley Walsh archivist in MAC News (Midland Automobile Club

This excellent book is so much more than the title suggests as it covers a wide motor racing history … the JAP and Vincent units are fully illustrated by the author who clearly knows his subject in great depth … Interestingly, the author not only describes the origins of the cars themselves but also paints vivid pictures of the motor racing, social and political scenes of their eras.

Jerry Sturman in Speedscene, journal of the Hillclimb and Sprint Association

Fills a significant gap in motorsport history … All enthusiasts will want to have this one on their shelves … Entertainingly written and superbly laid out … the book is a visual treat as well as being a meticulously researched, in-depth survey of the history and development of the motorcycle V-twin engine in competition.

Mike Cooper, Managing Director, Cooper Car Company Ltd

I have been buried in the book all weekend. It is a fascinating read and I am sure many other motor racing enthusiasts will really enjoy it. Tsrwright (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, for copies of published reviews go to www.loosefillings.com and select Power Without Glory in the top banner. Tsrwright (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduced in LooseFillings' blurb are: Full page review by Mark Dixon and David Lillywhite of Octane magazine (and voted "Book of the Month" for February 2016); Two columns by "SS" in Automobile magazine of January 2016; Half a page by "JRCS" in the Winter 2015 Bulletin of VSCC (of which Wright is a member); Two pages by Stephen Dalton in the Mini Cooper Register (date not given); and a half page by JS in SpeedScene (date not given). All British or Australian publications. The Doug Nye review alluded to is unfortunately not reproduced. Doug butler (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further reflection, this book, like many in my library, is a reliable source for improving articles (as Wright) has so usefully contributed to the article on J. A. Prestwich Industries, but not yet part of the motor racing canon as are several by Doug Nye, none of which AFAIK is the subject of an article. Doug butler (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: Doug butler is the person who originally split the article into its own page. I'm adding this comment out of chronological order because I think it's far more important for closing this discussion than the comments by the book's author below. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Butler posted the separate article way back when, but after all these years he thinks it should be deleted! Tsrwright (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think whether or not Doug Nye books are mentioned on Wikipedia is the issue, Doug (Butler). Presumably nobody has put up information about any of Doug's books but that is hardly a reason for excluding my book which should be judged on its merits not by whether Wikipedia adequately covers other books.

I initially posted a brief note on the original Power Without Glory page that there was another book with the same main title and that simple fact surely ought to be on the record. When that was rejected by other contributors I created my own, very simple, factual record which is that which is now under discussion.

I have made some minor changes to the current page to better describe the book's significance in first documenting some of the key influences on the design of the modern racing car and I hope that helps. If that and any other changes are not good enough for Wikipedia's standards then just for the completeness of the facts something needs to be stated on the 'other' book's entry.

Meanwhile, back to Doug and the question of the source of his review of the book which I think was online. I don't have that reference but here is his personal comment by email back in 2015:

Extended content

*:On 6 November 2015 at 23:34, Doug Nye wrote:

WOW Terry,

Great piece of work. Just arrived. I LOVE it!

(redacted)

On 7 Nov 2015, at 02:26, Terry Wright wrote:

Thank you very much, Doug, I very much appreciate the kind words. How do you feel about me using a sentence of yours on my Facebook page ... ?

(redacted)

Your daughters certainly did a great job for you Terry. For your Facebook page by all means use anything you like. For example: “I was expecting a pretty basic agricultural old banger of a book - instead here’s a beautifully designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history - really well worth the money. Respect!”

Best - Doug

Tsrwright (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a summary of what secondary sources say about a topic, not what other people privately think of it. I have taken the liberty of hiding the email to hopefully make the discussion easier to read for everyone. If I've messed up the formatting while doing so, feel free to fix it.

As for the argument about precedent, this article is just ... way out of range of what is normal here. To make an analogy in a different topic, federal and state politicians are inherently notable here; the notability of this book compared to most non-fiction works on Wikipedia is like comparing the notability of the current Australian Prime Minister to a random council member of a small shire (let's pick on the City of Busselton where I live for an example). Newspaper coverage of said council member would only be restricted to the Busselton area except in extremely unusual circumstances, just as coverage of a book about a very niche topic like this one is only restricted to special interest magazines/websites about that topic. The essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is tangentially relevant.

Also, Tsrwright, if I'd noticed your edits to the Power Without Glory novel page in 2015, I would have simply reverted them as self-promotion ... as would have many many other Wikipedia editors. You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a very twisted argument and I take exception to the statement, 'You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long'. I did not need a line or two on Wikipedia for promotional purposes; all I did was turn to Wikipedia simply to update its record of facts. I am not a philosopher so I have to rely on commonsense which tells me that just like the earth being round, it is a fact that this book meets the criterion of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Any other ideas such as 'self-promotion' and this being 'a book about a very niche topic' are simply opinion. It also suggests that what you regard as 'notable' is very much influenced by what you are interested in and that does not speak well of Wikipedia. Tsrwright (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having tagged a few australian motorsport article talk pages, and motorsport articles in my time, I find the lack of a broad set of WP:RS to substantiate the notability and it is sufficient argument to delete. There is nothing from this discussion above that convinces me otherwise. Admittedly book stubs are hard at times to find enough reviews in reasonable third party sources, but that should not be an argument to keep. JarrahTree 06:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Dixon, Mark; Lillywhite, David (February 2016). "Power without glory: Racing the big-twin Cooper". Octane. No. 152. p. 166. ProQuest 1777019207.
  The review provides 416 words about the subject. The review notes: "The sub-line on the front cover says 'Racing the Big-Twin Cooper' but this is so much more than that. It's better described in the blurb on the back: ... And actually, it's a bit more than that too, because in exploring the development of the first Cooper racing cars, and their predecessors in Great Britain and the USA, author Terry Wright also examines the conditions in which the populaces of the two countries were living before and after World War Two. All this turns what might have been a dry tome into a genuinely entertaining read. ... To help explain those racing scenes, Wright adds in fascinating social history of the period, which brings to life the wonderfully varied (and beautifully reproduced) archive pictures of cyclecars, midget racers and specials driven mostly sideways by their gung-ho owners, wearing little if no protective gear. For those images alone, the book is worth every penny of the £55 cover price. That it's a great read as well is simply a huge bonus."
2. Mallett, Delwyn (January 2016). "Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper". The Automobile. pp. 83–84.
  The automobile historian G. N. Georgano said, "The Automobile is the only motoring magazine that I read from cover to cover. When it arrives, treat all other magazines are put aside until I have studied it thoroughly’." The review notes: "With the scene set, the latter part of Terry's book concentrates on racing and hill climbing in the UK and Europe from 1948. Event and personality photographs are outstanding, and include work by such photographers as Klemantaski. Terry's sense of history survives, with the rear-engine Benz representing Germany and the rather disturbing Elfe, France. One particularly evocative pair of shots shows manufacture under way in the Cooper garage, contrasted with the vast Brabazon assembly hall. A particular strength of the action shots is captions giving intelligent summaries of each driver's style and success or failure, while the main text goes into detail on performance and incidents during practice as well as in the event. ... The cover price of this book, not cheap for a specialised publication, is justified by the quality of production and breadth of coverage. Wright gives a balanced picture of the light racing car renaissance born, primarily, from a British willingness to get stuck in and build a car from available parts. To stand a chance, the result had to be a light, simple and economical racer which could be run successfully by amateurs in the face of more expensive and complex designs. Book and philosophy are recommended."
3. The other reviews listed by siroxo.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there might be some COI editing going on, focusing the discussion on the book's author and their activity on Wikipedia takes away attention from what this discussion should be about which is assessing the sources brought forward by editors who are participating here. Less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the posting by Cunard is a sufficient statement of the book's qualification for a Wikipedia entry. If the contents are relevant then I believe it further qualifies as 'notable' because it is an authoritative account of the largely undocumented origins and early development of the modern open-wheeled racing car. Tsrwright (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the book, you have little standing to make such comments. [[Notability on Wikipedia is not about how a work fills a niche; it's about whether it's received enough attention from the world at large to get an article here. As the nominator of this discussion, I don't think it has. I think the cited reviews are too specialised to really assert notability here. While researching the publisher, I noticed that the book's author helps run the publishing company,, making this book effectively self-published. I also question if there are any relationships (even monetary ones) between the book's author, publishers, and reviewers that may make the reviews less independent than they appear; the book's in a tiny niche, after all. I also notice that the notability criterion about reviews that this AFD hinges on has been strongly questioned in the past; I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) to find out if we can get some more input. Graham87 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It appears from my reading of it that the discussion on deleting the criterion of two reviews ended in 2020 with numerous votes against change so surely that matter was dealt with then. Bear in mind that the book in question, of which I am the author and one of the publishers, had reviews from at least two (there might have been three, I forget) of the leading independent journals plus a number from lesser but still independent journals as well as one undisputed authority. It might also be noted that these reviews were laudatory as well as there being an award from the Society of Automotive Historians. As far as I can tell the 'notability' criterion has been met. That being so, deletion should require evidence that diminishes that notability but so far there has been none other than a claim, such as above, that this book is in a 'tiny niche' which I dispute. That raises the question is how large does a niche have to be for the book not to be excluded from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of niche information, tiny and otherwise, and surely that is one of its strengths. Tsrwright (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  By the way, there are no relationships monetary or otherwise between the book's author and publisher (who were in Sydney, Australia), and the reviewers who were mainly in England. As wisely stated earlier, less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion. Tsrwright (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:COI editing is a red herring that can be dealt with at other venues. It seems to have been demonstrated already in this discussion that the article's subject meets the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I do intuitively lean towards deletion but I won't cast a !vote as I am inexperienced when it comes to writing about books and this is really a "vibe of the thing" argument. Something just seems a bit off to me about a book being able to qualify for an article with two reviews, especially when those reviews are drawn from specialist motorsport sources rather than general media.I suspect there is something more to the "non-trivial" standard than what has been brought up in this discussion. This just doesn't seem like the sort of book I would expect to have a Wikipedia article, but it wouldn't be the first surprise this site has given me. I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting personal again! If you have something to say to the Nostalgia Forum you should say it there. Tsrwright (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No Terry, I have no obligation to engage with you off Wikipedia. However, your conduct there suggests you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. But as you've been so eager to stress, you're not the topic of this discussion, the article is, so perhaps focus in, back off, and respect the processes of the editing community instead of talking shit on the Autosport forums. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5225C's comment I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums surely has no place in this discussion with the perjorative use of 'behaviour' as if I have somehow done something wrong. I can only assume that as the author of the above talking shit on the Autosport forums his were the comments deleted by the moderators in a discussion on Wikepedia's notability requirements for articles on books 5225C is a university student and given his rekarks above, I am surprised that he or she has any status on Wikipwedia. Tsrwright (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  his or her remarks Tsrwright (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I said what I said, escalate it if you like. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More source weighing is needed. If there are conduct issues, please raise at AN/I or other appropriate venue. Tswright, I would advise that you've made your case. You do not need to reply to every editor's input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agreed, but Wikipedia people should cut out the personal comments as previously requested. Tsrwright (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth and reliably published reviews have been listed above. That is all that is needed for GNG. That some editors think the topic and the reviews specialized is irrelevant; that is not part of the GNG criteria. If you think this sort of topic should not have an article, you need to change the notability criteria to be based on something other than the existence of in-depth reliable independent sources, rather than pretending that those sources somehow don't count for reasons that are not part of the criteria. (Here from a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books).) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's hardly a better reason to have an article about a book than substantial reviews in appropriate publications. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HumanBodyPiloter5, David Eppstein, and XOR'easter. GNG trumps SNGs such as WP:NB, which itself says "A book that meets ... the general notability guideline ... and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2023 (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.