Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Case for Latvia

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Relisted twice so it's time to move on, but I must say I was not overly impressed by the level of policy/guideline based arguments presented here. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Case for Latvia

The Case for Latvia (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)

Tagged as not-notable since 2011. Bringing here for community input. Sagecandor (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete because the author is notable, the publisher serious, and the topic intriguing, I tried to source this one. No go. Best I came up with was a press release the year it was published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you search for sources in Finnish, Latvian, or Russian? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, since the article tells why the book is notable. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep -- The fact that it has been translate4d multiple times implies it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, notable per sources, and per above Keep comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• How is this book independently notable from the author, even based on the sources? And where are the book reviews? czar 17:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The Case for Latvia is part of the academic series (WP:TBK) On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics, which has a scholarly editorial board. I have added a new section on the reception of The Case for Latvia. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to the author article, Jukka Rislakki. I was not able to find sufficient independent reviews to establish stand-alone notability for the book. There's no need for two separate articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone with access to Journal of Baltic Studies might find this book review interesting. I haven't got access, unfortunately. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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.