Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Bonanza

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 redirect to Alastair Sweeny. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bonanza[edit]

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

Non-notable book, SPA-written to promote Alastair Sweeny, no in-depth coverage found (most ELs are out of scope) GermanJoe (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alastair Sweeny. I couldn't really find anything that went into specifics about this book. The only time it was really mentioned were in news articles where Sweeny was brought in to give an expert opinion, as they would name drop the book when they mentioned Sweeny. The most in-depth one was this one, but this wouldn't be enough to show notability and even then we could argue that the book wasn't entirely the focus of the piece as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author page. Nothing notable about the book that can't be covered there. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alastair Sweeny - this book isn't notable by itself. Remove the link from Sweeny's article, as well. PK T(alk) 14:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have said. It would have to be a very notable history book to need its own article. ASVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2015 (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.