Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Current Controversies

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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Current Controversies[edit]

Delete – the "article" is simply a table of contents to a highly non-notable book. Peter G Werner 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia not being a table of contents for a book. --Wafulz 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the large number of bluelinked authors suggests some notability. Melchoir 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wafulz. Being associated with notable authors doesn't make the book notable, particularly since it seems to be anthology. —dustmite 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dustmite. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly named ReverendG 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article sounds even more like the poor construction of a late-night college freshman essay binge than a book. Regardless, Wikipedia != ToC. Delete. --S0uj1r0 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the introduction but delete the table of contents. Worldcat states that 1011 libraries have copies of the book, that's surely enough to satisfy the notability guideline for books, which asks if "several" libraries have the book. Keep the stub for now, and if the book is relevant, someone can expand the article in time. TheronJ 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with TheronJ's caveats. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Keep, cleanup and move to Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict (Current Controversies) which seems to be the correct title per Amazon and many other sources. Not only does it pass the ridiculously low requirements in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (books), it also meets the proposed guideline WP:BK (and if you'll excuse the spam I invite anyone to join the discussion of this proposal) since it appears to be used as a reference in scholarly works. Pascal.Tesson 21:11, 16 September 2006 (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.