Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere: An Illustrated Introduction

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere: An Illustrated Introduction[edit]

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

This article has cites no references except itself. I don't see where it meets any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book was originally published in the 70's, possibly earlier. Tuttle is a major importer of japanese books to the american market. i would be surprised if this book was not a significant work in the history of publishing on aikido. refs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These and others seem to show multiple significant mentions in neutral sources (id not the author or publisher themself).OK, my error (which im leaving here to show my work) example #3 is from another book by them, but that books seems fairly notable too.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have viewed the sources and they only contain passing mentions about the book. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, these are all brief mentions, true, but i would not call them "passing". two of them state that this book is a classic in aikido literature. its true they dont give an exegesis of the book. i think there may be extensive written comments on this book from the 70's, not all of them online. But, i wont belabor the point. if others want to try to find adequate refs, fine. if not, so be it, and if consensus says delete, i wont worry. Its not a clear keep in any case, but is definitely debatable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unsourced and the book clearly fails to meet any of the notability criteria for books. Sources mentioned above aren't about the book and aren't sufficient to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Book fails notability criteria.131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (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.