The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - I think we must simply apply the criteria set under WP:Notability requirements. A number of citations does not demonstrate its notability or seminal nature - not unless those citations themselves are significant. A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
This book meets none of these criteria. Contaldo80 ( talk) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep The first criteria plainly applies. This book was covered widely and extensively in the national and international press and is widely cited by both scholar and general publications. It returns hundreds of citations on Google books and Google scholar. Moreover, there are myriad articles on much less notable books. This seems to be a very POV nomination. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete - I think we must simply apply the criteria set under WP:Notability requirements. A number of citations does not demonstrate its notability or seminal nature - not unless those citations themselves are significant. A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
This book meets none of these criteria. Contaldo80 ( talk) 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep The first criteria plainly applies. This book was covered widely and extensively in the national and international press and is widely cited by both scholar and general publications. It returns hundreds of citations on Google books and Google scholar. Moreover, there are myriad articles on much less notable books. This seems to be a very POV nomination. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply