Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Corporations Rule the World

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Corporations Rule the World

Propose delete on grounds of non-notability and advertising of book. Related entry Corporate libertarianism has already been deleted.--Gavin Collins 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does seem vaguely notable after a quick search, needs better sourcing though Guycalledryan 07:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ At present it's just an advert and as the writer stands against capitalism and globalisation I'm sure he wouldn't want everyone in the world to read all about it here or be able to buy it on Amazon either. Nick mallory 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion to Keep after more material was added. Nick mallory 11:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclosure: I am the article's only author to date. Can I "vote"?)

The book is widely known in globalization and anti-globalization circles, especially among academics (adheres to Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books - google the book title and "syllabus" and little time is needed to find examples).

Inside WP, references to the book are seen in articles on Anti-globalization and David Korten. In both cases, I simply linked to the article in question and did not create the initial mention (the book is mentioned in the Feb 2003 creation of the author's article, since it's his most well-known work).

Outside WP, the book is cited often in a variety of fields (see Amazon citations and Google Scholar) and has multiple printings. Perhaps I should link this NYT reference to the article which says the book is "considered the bible of the movement against globalization".

While a term from the book (Articles for deletion/Corporate libertarianism) might not have been worthy of an article, the book, like the author, is worthy.

Finally, I don't believe the article to be "advertising". I tried to stick to NPOV by describing what the main themes are in the book. Maybe I could understand a {{tone}} tag. --Fisherjs 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's more or less NPOV, and isn't that unnotable. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google'ing of it clearly shows that it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books. Not as NPOV as I would think ideal, but not worthy of deletion. Just needs a bit of cleanup. Maintainerzero 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and remove the spam. The reviews belong as references, not as long quotes expanding the article. DGG 21:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Djsasso 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure seems notable. --Nricardo 22:44, 3 June 2007 (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.