- 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Racket (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the reviews, not an important book. Only103 library holdings. The various praises given in the reception section are unpublished blurbs and do not count.People do this out of friendship or reciprocality, and they're no more to be taken seriously than toasts at a party. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As much as I dislike the author it does have two published reviews which meets WP:NBOOK--Savonneux (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- that is a very minimal requirement. Technically meeting the minimal requirement does not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. It is the minimal requirement. Technically meeting the minimal requirement means that it meets the minimal requirement. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guideline is the guideline except when I decide it's not Kay.--Savonneux (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book meets WP:BKCRIT. The nominator, as a professional librarian (as stated on the nominator's user page), should be well aware of the OCLC "Vendor record contribution program participants", where "The following material vendors load records into WorldCat through the vendor record contribution program." Vendor contribution to the database makes the number of library holdings irrelevant, unreliable and minimal counts of library holdings (WorlCat) are not discussed in any policies or guidelines cited by the nominator. In fact, I contend that Amazon's, "Editorial Reviews" section, is far more credible than a WorldCat count, where the publisher can simply flood the database with donated books. (What would you do with boxes of books that didn't sell?).
- Let's see who reviewed the book for Amazon's "Editorial Reviews". But, because Amazon also includes user-reviews there is a (also unwritten?) perception that Amazon peer reviews,[1] cannot be cited in the Wikipedia.
- (Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything and The Shock Doctrine)
- (Noam Chomsky)
- (Alice Walker, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Color Purple)
- (Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy)
- (Owen Jones, author of Chavs and The Establishment)
- (Mike Davis, author of Planet of Slums and In Praise of Barbarians: Essays against Empire)
- (Antony Loewenstein, Guardian columnist and author of Profits of Doom)
- (Michael Parenti, author of The Face of Imperialism and Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies)
- (Nawal El Saadawi, author of Woman at Point Zero)
- (Susan George, author of The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the Twenty-first Century)
- In reality, Amazon is an entity that can be sued, they would not and could not sustain any of these reviews without full permission from the reviewers; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they are not RS. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points re library holdings and the peer review. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The assertion that something is reliable because it hasn't yet been sued is not likely to stand up to much scrutiny. Most directly, Amazon regularly allows humorous or satirical reviews, and lets customers have fun with the format. There's no objective litmus for discerning such reviews, only a subjective feeling that a review must be in that category. Because Wikipedia generally doesn't accept self-published material as reliable, I don't think there can be much question that there is a written policy (What is a "written perception"?) that Amazon reviews aren't reliable sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nom disagrees with the criteria set out at WP:BKCRIT, which state "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." They have written at my talkpage "I've thought for years that a literal interpretation of NBOOK is too low a standard". However, disagreeing with an integral Wikipedia policy is not a reason for deletion. I think this is made pretty clear by the statement the NOM made "Despite the reviews, not an important book" - surely one of this more interesting deletion justifications. Basically, that translates to me as "Despite meeting WP:NBOOK, it's not a book I like" AusLondonder (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I completely agree that WP:NBOOK's "two review" rule is too lenient, particularly when we allow trivial reviews from indiscriminate sites like Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Unfortunately, though, NBOOK is what we have for now. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the two review rule is too lenient. Several million new books are published each year. Comparatively few will meet WP:BKCRIT AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't agree that two review rule is too lenient. Most books receive no reviews or just one review. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (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.