Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla

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. John254 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla

Fails WP:BK. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not familiar with WP:BK, but do book reviews (in major newspapers) count? I think there are at least two of them out there. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, book reviews satisfy the first criteria. I can't access the New York Times article in its entirety, but I can access the Tribune article, and the section on the Tesla book is about 400 words long. Zagalejo^^^ 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know if SA read WP:BK, but it does pass that. This is a major work. SA has a well known anti-tesla bent to his activities. There are 170 references in g.books. Also it is cited in scholarly articles. Also, there is a historically significant topic, of the author and the subject of the book. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The book is composed of much of Nikola tesla's own works. Tesla has been called "The Father of Physics", "The man who invented the twentieth century", and "the patron saint of modern electricity." J. D. Redding 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stated in my comment. J. D. Redding 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received at least two reviews in major newspapers. That's good enough. (It probably received much more attention than that - Google News isn't great for 19th century sources). Zagalejo^^^ 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since there is absolutely no recent third-party commentary here, there's not much point in having an article. If cites by modern historians were added, it might be worth keeping. Otherwise, just retain an entry for this book in the reference list of the Nikola Tesla article. No objection to a future re-creation of this article with good modern sources. Regarding WP:BK criterion #5 (great inherent author notability), it may apply to Winston Churchill but I'm not sure about Nikola Tesla, since none of his written works are widely known or commented upon currently. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline or policy that requires recent sources. In any case, here's a source from 1998 that discusses the book within a historical context. Zagalejo^^^ 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the refernces found by J. D. Redding. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reviews in major periodicals support notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2008 (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.