Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. The one cited review is more a political opinion than a book review (the book seems to be mentioned more in passing). The other ref shows no obvious connection at all to the book. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Pretty borderline. But there are a few refs out there. I've added a couple. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (Creator) With more sources now clearly meets WP:BKCRIT. The NZ Herald article sited by nominator is clearly a review.AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NickCT added some good faith cites, but they are really stretching the definition of notabilty. The NZ Herald review just regurgitates the book's opinions while never actually saying anything about the book itself other than that Rose wrote it. I find it difficult to even label it a review. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unequivocally passes WP:NBOOK. Disagreeing with the content or structure of a review isn't a valid reason to discount it for WP:NBOOK purposes; the important part is that the book has received coverage from multiple reputable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to dig up more sources, go for it, because I can't find any. As of now, this is a clear failure of WP:BKCRIT. The only source that actually covers the book is the New Zealand Herald article. Even if we ignore the problems stated by VMS Mosaic, that's only one source, while BKCRIT says "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The Guardian article is written by the author and the WNYC link is a radio show where the author was a guest. I can't find any mention of it at the Amnesty USA page. ― Padenton|✉ 06:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Rose (journalist): fails WP:GNG:
- [1] - written by the author, see notice on the bottom.
- [2]] - only coverage; but I think this is written by the author, because the title suggests that David Rose (the author) wrote it.
- The other two sources are mostly on the author himself, and not the actual book.

- Esquivalience ^t 01:24, 26 May 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.