Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Smart (book)

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. --MCB (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Smart (book)[edit]

A book about private highways. A long list of authors but no attempt to explain its notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not quite sure what you have in mind. It has been mentioned in many newspaper and magazine articles, e.g. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080111/COMMENTARY/864583961/1012/COMMENTARY&template=nextpage Authorship by a FHWA Secretary also suggests notability. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You shot youself in the foot by not including the above info. in the article - do you think that a) we all know what the FHWA is and b) we will instantly recognise that one of the authors is a FHWA secretary. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, of course, there are reviews in the Midwest Book Review (http://www.midwestbookreview.com/calbw/aug_06.htm), the John Locke Foundation (http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/cjPrintEdition/cj-dec2006-web.pdf), the Thoreau Institute (founded 1974) (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?m=20070702), etc. No, I can't include that information in the article or it will be considered prima facie evidence of promotional spam/advertising justifying CSD. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:notability. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A book written by a New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle writer is notable. [1][2] It was also reviewed by the National Journal.[3]. The nom's opening argument "A book about private highways" as if they judged the topic to be un-encyclopedic rings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References above demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book's Topic is relevant to debate on toll roads in many regions of USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.190.245 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability at all. We can't have an article about every single book. NBeale (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it discusses an important topic, and I added references showing that some important articles have included it. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 29 January 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.