Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Africa House

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Africa House[edit]

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

Non-notable book (the house to which the title refers is, of course, itself notable). PROD contested, but the two sources supplied -- an anonymous paragraph-long online review and an about.com link -- do not make this a notable book. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From Google news archive, I'm finding several independent published reviews of this work (examples: [1][2]) as well as other mentions. Hence I suspect it has sufficient notability. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:29, 12 June 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) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be notable, but if it's judged non-notable, I'd suggest a merge with Stewart Gore-Browne, the subject of the book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 19 June 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, Davewild (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found many more sources and while the PW, KR, and Booklist reviews are sort of short, the About.com source is by a staff member (as opposed to a random member of the site) and we have reviews by the Seattle Times, the New Statesman, and Independent. There's a ton of mentions in books as sources, although I generally try not to use that as a justification to keep because that's something that could be debated. It does appear that there has been a documentary based off of Lamb's book, although it doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly notable so I don't think that really counts towards the book passing WP:NBOOK. There's not an overabundance of sources that would make this overwhelmingly and completely notable, but I believe that there's just enough here to have this squeak by.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book reviews prove notability . PW reviews are always short, but it's very selective, and the presence of a review there has always been accepted here as one of the reviews contributing to the notability of a book. Booklist similarly. Kirkus Reviews similarly, for the period--I think its reliability for notability has sharply declined since its relaunch in 2009, and is is now essentially a PR site--see the article on it. Worldcat shows about 500 holdings in libraries, as would be expected for a book widely reviewed in the journals librarians use to decide if a book is worth buying. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 3 July 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.