Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Nation Under Surveillance

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation Under Surveillance

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Chesterman; this is basically an article written by the author of the book the article is about! The same Wikipedian who did this also wrote an article about himself. The book's author is hardly going to be a neutral contributor, conscious or unconscious. (For example, the author would be unlikely to include negative reviews.) In addition, the article smacks of wikipuffery. I move for deletion. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This recently published book has been highly praised by Gareth Evans, among others. It should be noted that the nominator of this AfD is currently accused by many editors of having an extreme POV on Singaporean matters: here and here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This book has nothing to do with Singaporean politics, and I am Singaporean myself. Please address Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. In addition, my real passion is fighting COI; my POV happens to be the opposite of whoever happens to have the conflict of interest. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The subject of this article is not notable enough or has enough coverage to be an independent article, so I suggest merging it under Simon Chesterman#Other books Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Book-flap praises like the Evans quote, which are selected by the publisher, are usually not enough for WP:N. There is however a review on a LSE blog [1], and one in Times Higher Education [2] [3]. There's also a review in the (2010 launched) JIPITEC open access journal. So, it can be fixed through WP:EDITING; for now I've tagged the problem. The book has been listed in the "received books" section of a couple of more prestigious journals [4] doi:10.1017/S0020589310000801, therefore I suspect more reviews are likely. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage found. Dream Focus 06:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A full THE review is enough to establish the notability of a book; it is reasonable that after that, there will be others. Already in 213 libraries, a/c worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contigent upon incorporating sources cited by FuFoFuEd.--JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: given that the article does nothing more than quote publisher's blurbs it is a potential G11 speedy candidate. To garner more than a purely nominal 'keep' !vote it needs to actually incorporate the "multiple, non-trivial published works" used to support its notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:52, 26 August 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.