Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Snow Papers

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 delete. Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Snow Papers

[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)

A book that appears to be non-notable. The article is currently unsourced, and when I looked for sources, I was only able to find one review from a reliable source, from the Washington Post. And while it was a good source, it, by itself, would not be enough to pass WP:NBOOK or the WP:GNG. I initially PRODed this, but failed to notice it had already been PRODed back in 2006, so I am bringing it to AFD as a result. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The contemporaneous WaPo review is more about Smart than this book, no clear assertion of notability here. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had this on my watchlist for awhile, and I couldn't find any in-depth reliable reviews. My Newspapers.com account is lapsed at the moment so I can't search it fully, so if anyone has that it might be worth a peek just in case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IceFishing has been blocked as a sockpuppet of PE65000. ミラ P 15:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep book and author got quite a lot of coverage when the book was published, I have added enough of the coverage to the page to establish notability.IceFishing (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument for moving this to a page about the author; the coverage I read is about the book, though often in the form of articles about stuff he descirbs in the book, or about him and the stuff he did as a member of a category or group of cocaine addicts in high-level jobs. But I could see more coverage that I didn't read or couldn't access.IceFishing (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2020 (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.