Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate

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 Snowball keep and capitalize "Is". Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate[edit]

Non-notable book. No outside reviews: no indication of fame, not an encyclopedic book. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21142636-5003900,00.html for an outside review. There are others. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article already had two reviews from mainstream Australian newspapers at the time it was nominated. I don't think it was fair to nominate it for deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fame is irrelevant. What Eastmain found plus these more than meet WP:BK. Reviews not present in the article doesn't mean they don't exist StarM 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable: non-trivial reviews here, here and here. Johnfos (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what the nominator means by "no outside reviews" but there are independent reviews by The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian, University of Wollongong, Green Left etc. Clearly a notable book. WWGB (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus above. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:BK without debate. This nomination was clearly not well considered before it was presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Clive Hamilton. There is really no need for a separate article, even if it was definitely notable. Lots of books get reviews. The question should be whether they continue to get noticed. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this book got a lot of coverage in the Australian political news media. Hesperian 03:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BK and WP:N due to secondary coverage in reliable independent sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 12 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.