Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Promised Land: The Movement and the Myth

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. Nakon 04:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Promised Land: The Movement and the Myth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NB Vi Dwell (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator): No signs of notability. Vi Dwell (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and-or Redirect to author if needed as I searched and simply found nothing better, there's regardless nothing else to suggest an improved separate article. Notifying DGG for his literature analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worldcat shows only 134 libraries, and it's not from a major publisher. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every book by a notable author necessarily gets automatic inclusion rights on Wikipedia just because it exists — the notability of the book still has to be supported by reliable sources about the book, and notability is not inherited just because of the name on the cover. And who blurbs the book isn't a claim of notability in and of itself, either, so the fact that you can throw the name Noam Chomsky into the article isn't an automatic freebie — especially if your only source for the fact is the publication details of the book itself. But once you discount that, all we've got left for sourcing is a user-generated discussion forum and a non-notable blog — which is not the type of sourcing it takes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2016 (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.