Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divorce your Car! (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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce your Car! (book)

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

Ad-like article about a book with few references and none that support notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sort of on the fence about this one. It has some trade reviews and it seems to have been reviewed by this magazine, which does have an editorial process. I also found an article where it looks to have been somewhat extensively mentioned. However other than that, I'm not finding much. There's a Forewords Reviews review, but that site is a little dodgy. They offer paid reviews and while they don't guarantee a positive one, that's enough to kind of make their stuff unusable. The only thing in its favor is that the review predates the fee review service. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there's enough out there on this one to show notability. Mind you, its not a slam dunk, but it seems to get continuing mentions, many years after its initial publication. The subject is not just a vanity piece like I expected it would be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 15 July 2014 (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.