Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fight for Canada

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. With Tokyogirl79's addition of 2 more reviews, consensus seems to tip to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight for Canada[edit]

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

No indication of notability, found one HuffPo review but that's about it. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:BKCRIT with this footnote, this academic review, and this newspaper article. It needs rewritten, though, as it's insufficient as-is. Apparently the book's author has a reputation among some as an anti-free trade crank so it could be notable because of the author. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the HuffPo piece I found wasn't about the book, just thought I'd mention that. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only criterion of WP:NBOOK this book has a chance of meeting is criterion one. It requires that the book be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works independent of the book. At first glance, we have four sources: the Huffington Post article, the footnote, the Calgary Herald article, and the academic review from persee.fr. However, Primefac said he made a mistake and that the Huffington Post article didn't really exist after all, so that can be disregarded. The "article" from the Calgary Herald is actually not about the book, but rather about the author (it only mentioned the book once). That leaves us with the academic review and the footnote. But a footnote can't really be called a non-trivial work; it's more of a passing mention. We're left with only the academic review, which is not enough to meet the book notability criteria (it requires two non-trivial independent sources). Therefore, I think the justification for keeping this article is quite weak. --Biblioworm 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm:, I've found two more reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Where? --Biblioworm 15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm: The Calgary Herald and Books in Canada. They came up when I searched via my college's databases, although I was able to find a copy of the BIL article that didn't require access. Both are fairly major outlets (or was, in the case of BIC), so they'd qualify as RS. That leaves us with three reviews, which would show notability, but I'd like to be able to find things that could flesh the whole article out as a whole. I'm going to drop a note at WP:CANADA and see if anyone there has read the book and could use the book to flesh out the article more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 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.