Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun Control in the Third Reich (book)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Withdrawn by nom. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control in the Third Reich (book)[edit]

Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep reviews and interviews from The washington times, The new republic (highly critical) and the Daily caller. Written by one of the most notable gun rights/law researchers. Also interviewed about the book by the NRA [1], and CBN (admittedly this last is not a super big network) [2] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple reviews by major sources satisfies WP:NBOOK. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Respectfully I added the book and I reviewed WP:NBOOK so I wouldn't waste anybody's time. Here is my analysis of WP:NBOOK and what I came up with under the policy:
1.Passes this Test - The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
2.Does Not pass this Test -The book has won a major literary award.
3.Passes This Test (we use it here, it meets WP:RS, the author is a lawyer who has won before the supreme court) - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
4.May pass this test but I can't substantiate- The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
5.May pass this test this is debatable, to some he is to others he is not - The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.
Overall grade: Passes at least One Test (which is the standard)"
Under Other Tests
ISBN: Yes
Self Publication: No
Vanity Press: Maybe but this does not exclude it
Online Bookstore: Yes
Not Yet Published: Not Applicable this book is published
Academic and Technical: Potentially, it's based on first hand research and written by a lawyer who has won in front of the supreme court.
Based on this detailed analysis of WP:NBOOK, it it passes the test for inclusion can Darkness Shines provide a particular failure why he would nominate the work excluded or if I'm missing something, I wouldn't mind learning. Otherwise would the editor please remove his nomination for removal?-Justanonymous (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be citing this book as a reliable source. Clearly ideological and unreliable. — goethean 22:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP:RS explicitly says that reliable sources are not required to be neutral or objective. Justanonymous as originally written it was not obvious that it did pass WP:NBOOK as there were not sufficient sources, but the nom probably should have done a bit more WP:BEFOREGaijin42 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, it does not matter that the author won a court case. I nominated it as it had no sources at the time I redirected, but looking at he sources does not change ny mind. American Thinker? Is that even RS? And it has a few lines in a long screed on gun control, I would not call that a review. Will look at the others soon. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews by The Washington Times, New Republic, and The Daily Caller are certainly reviews in RS. The book meets the first inclusion criteria under WP:NBOOK. I found this book on NPP, and considered nominating it for deletion, but instead moved it and created a dab page so that the creator and others would have a chance to improve it. The current sources show that it meets our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Control_in_the_Third_Reich_(book)&oldid=1071947532"