261:
non-notable is a poor word for the problem here. The basic thing is that we write articles to be neutral and factual, which means we summarize sources (the alternative is just adding our own opinions). Third party sources are needed, otherwise we are just repeating what the book itself says, in which
217:
I need more of an explanation why this book fails the notability guidelines to weigh in here. If only some books are notable, what makes them so? Where are the guidelines that I can use to evaluated this book against? Failing any detailed explanation, my instinct would be to keep the article, but
262:
case we're not really writing an encyclopedia article so much as a book summary. In the case of this book, there seem to be no third party sources. None are cited in the article, none come on a search of Google Books or Lexis-Nexis. No third party sources, no article. If you need a policy, see
266:
which says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it." It's rather sad that an admin would want to keep the article despite the lack of any third party sources, by the way...
88:
83:
92:
75:
128:
Non-notable book; no claim to notability; no third-party references at all; no third-party references to establish notability. Just an advertising page to promote the title, apparently.
191:
121:
308:
291:
276:
250:
227:
208:
178:
155:
137:
57:
79:
17:
71:
63:
323:
36:
322:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
304:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
200:
288:
151:
53:
300:
272:
133:
285:
223:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
147:
49:
268:
129:
244:
219:
172:
109:
263:
237:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
165:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
316:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
116:
105:
101:
97:
242:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
170:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
326:). No further edits should be made to this page.
284:- completely non-notable, reads like an advert.
192:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
186:
190:: This debate has been included in the
72:Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die?
64:Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die?
7:
24:
146:: trivial coverage, non-notable.
218:demand a thorough re-write. --
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
343:
309:22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
292:21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
277:03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
251:00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
228:17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
58:23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
209:01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
179:00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
156:06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
138:15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
319:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
253:
211:
195:
181:
334:
321:
247:
241:
239:
203:
196:
175:
169:
167:
119:
113:
95:
34:
342:
341:
337:
336:
335:
333:
332:
331:
330:
324:deletion review
317:
245:
235:
201:
173:
163:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
340:
338:
329:
328:
312:
311:
301:Broadweighbabe
294:
279:
255:
254:
240:
232:
231:
230:
212:
183:
182:
168:
160:
159:
158:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
339:
327:
325:
320:
314:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
293:
290:
287:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
265:
260:
257:
256:
252:
249:
248:
238:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
216:
213:
210:
207:
206:
204:
193:
189:
185:
184:
180:
177:
176:
166:
162:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
142:
141:
140:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
318:
315:
296:
281:
258:
243:
236:
214:
199:
198:
187:
171:
164:
143:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
299:per above.
148:JamesBurns
50:Malcolmxl5
269:Chiliad22
130:Mikeblas
122:View log
289:Snowman
246:MBisanz
220:llywrch
215:Comment
174:MBisanz
89:protect
84:history
297:Delete
282:Delete
259:Delete
144:Delete
117:delete
93:delete
46:delete
286:Giant
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
305:talk
273:talk
264:WP:V
224:talk
188:Note
152:talk
134:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
48:. --
197:--
307:)
275:)
267:--
226:)
194:.
154:)
136:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
303:(
271:(
222:(
205:'
202:I
150:(
132:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.