Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää (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 Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää (book)[edit]

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

Very recently released book which fails WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong ^comment 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Keep for reasons given below. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has been criticised among others in two main daily papers of Finland Helsingin Sanomat, Turun Sanomat and by Yle, the Finnish National Broadcasting Company. The Church was burned down by a pyromaniac and the whole process of reconstruction of the church had a huge attention in Finnish media.--Abc10 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with St. Olaf's Church in Tyrvää. Fails WP:NBOOK but would be interesting addition for the churc's article. Pitke (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Apparently doesn't after all, my bad. It's a keep case. Pitke (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworth book about a noteworth rebuilding of the church. --Ufinne (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE SnottyWong ^confer 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talk about churchs's history very well. Aku506 (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT SnottyWong ^confer 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for claiming that the book "fails WP:NBOOK".
1. It meets the general criteria (=one or more of the following criteria: [...] has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience – see Abc10's comment. This criterion is without doubt met.)
2. The exclusionary criteria aren't met: the book is available in over a dozen libraries [1][2], has an ISBN, and is catalogued by the national library. Not self-publicized. Not an academic book. --PeeKoo (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom has given absolutely no justification for deletion. "Very recently released book" has nothing to do with our guidelines and "fails WP:NBOOK" is simply a WP:ITSNOTABLE statement with no reasoning to back it up. Having coverage in the publications indicated by Abc10 showing passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2010 (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.