Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight on the Mavi Marmara

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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The result was speedy keep (withdrawn nomination without dissent). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight on the Mavi Marmara

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted as a PROD, but was restored after the deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. There is no claim to notability for the book; the author is notable, and so are (some of) the contributors, but that does not automatically confer notability on the book. Quite simply, the book does not meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK. The editor who originaly PROD tagged the article looked for sources, and so did I, without finding anything. bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as there are sources I hadn't found, which indicate notability. These have been added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has been reviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ([1]), Foreign Policy In Focus ([2]), Mother Jones ([3]), The New York Times Magazine (Quoted in Amazon.com listing: [4]), International Socialist Review ([5]), and Press TV ([6]). There is other random coverage too (e.g. [7]). And having co-authors like Noam Chomsky gets pretty close to WP:NBOOK #5. jorgenev 12:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to that - Chomsky is not a co-author (I agree that his notability is such that it would have been sufficient for NBOOK), but one of over 40 contributors. Thank you for the extra sources! Now I worry about my own powers of information retrieval, that I didn't find those... --bonadea contributions talk 12:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jorgenev, please add the sources to the article at least s a series of external links, Sadads (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2011 (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.