Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America

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 G7 per user request. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America[edit]

Non-notable recent book Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, why do you think that it is non-notable? Schuym1 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - could somebody direct me to the WP guidelines, if any exist, on the inclusion of book summaries? Is Wikipedia meant to include all books that may happen to receive coverage in reliable sources? I have nothing against this book. The thing is, I'm not sure I see yet how such a book merits inclusion, but I don't really see a clear reason to exclude it, either. Are all books meeting minimum guidelines going to be summarized in WP? Maybe this is a grey area in the notability criterion (Wikipedia:NOTABILITY isn't helping me here). Jlg4104 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done got it! WP:NB. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTABILITY should have helped you out because of the first criteria. Schuym1 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - and thanks, people. The book notability criteria are "bugging" me a little, but I get it. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This was a lame contribution on my part, so I'm scratching my pref above. I still can't decide whether this is a case where simply applying WP:NB is the thing to do, or there's something wrong with the idea of including every last book that gets press. Books get press almost by default, unlike people, who must do something notable to get press about themselves. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a noteable non-fiction source per WP:NOTE. It can be expanded well and be very noteable...someone with the book just needs to put more info on it's page. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed two sources that shouldn't have been added, but there is still Science News, Houston Chronicle, Star Tribune, and Northern Winds. Schuym1 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Science News is a press release and the Northern Winds link looks like one also. I will tag this as CSD-G7. Schuym1 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - After a long time of searching (earlier before and a few times during this AFD), I can't find any sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk{) 04:24, 6 January 2009 (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.