Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squat Theatre Book
- 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 delete. Cerebellum (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Squat Theatre 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)
Fails WP:NBOOK. No sign of significant coverage, either in article or found via Google search. Worldcat says only 19 libraries have a copy. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- "A book that meets either the general notability guideline OR the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article."From general notability page of which IF a work falls under "is presumed to merit an article.'": ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The book falls under Significant Coverage thus in WP:GNG. Wikipedia says nothing in regards "Google search."ovA_165443 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've found no sign of "significant coverage", and the sort of footnote quotes you listed on the article talk page does not reach that standard. Can you point to some significant coverage? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- "A book that meets either the general notability guideline OR the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article."From general notability page of which IF a work falls under "is presumed to merit an article.'": ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The book falls under Significant Coverage thus in WP:GNG. Wikipedia says nothing in regards "Google search."ovA_165443 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I noticed on Talk:Squat Theatre Book that the author believes being cited few times makes the work notable. As can be seen from the cited NBOOK policy, this is not the case. Since we cannot find any reviews that would mean the book was noticed by independent sources, there is nothing to warrant keeping this. Unencyclopedic topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I will put the Squat Theatre Book in the Squat Theatre Article and remove this page. Thank You! ovA_165443 14:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD G7. Author has requested deletion here, blanked the page twice, and there are no other substantial contributors. I've restored the blanked page a second time, but I don't really think we need to go through the motions here. Adding the G7 tag in a sec. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 2 January 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.