Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change[edit]

Fails our book notability statutes. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable: non-trivial reviews here, here, and here. Johnfos (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What John said, plus these StarM 03:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the notability requirements per WP:BK. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability requirements, and it is looking like nominator has something against Clive Hamilton (i'm not trying to assert bad faith in any way but the username of "Science Apologist" does seem to give something away). INTGAFW (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not think "Science Apologist" has anything against Clive Hamilton. I certainly do not. Indeed I am a fan of his, but I do not understand why someone has written articles on many of his publications. They do get reviews, yes, but the material would be much better in the article on the man himself. Lots of books get reviews, but will they continue to noticed? If merged they will in future be much easier to maintain, when they are less well known. I think all these articles should be merged and made redirects to Clive Hamilton. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but that's not what WP:BK says, which is, in part, The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. Because someone doesn't think there should be articles on all these books, why do we have articles on less notable books? Yes I know it's a WAX argument, but there's a reason we have notability guidelines in the first place. StarM 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary coverage means it meets WP:BK and WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BK without a problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reviews, it does not pass WP:BK. The final stipulation of criteria 1 is that "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The reviews do not provide critical commentary; the article will not be able to expand beyond a simple synopsis. The book is not notable. - Atmoz (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BK, including critical commentary in most of the second page of the review in The Age. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2008 (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.