Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Turkey

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. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No third-party sources listed to establish notability. This sounds like an article drafted in order to promote the book. I can't tell if this is the product of paid editing or the product of someone who is weirdly enthusiastic about the book. -- Beland (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NBOOK per reviews: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], p500, etc. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- We cannot have an article on every book. However, the author is a respected journalist, writing about a topic relevant to foreign affairs; it has at least three newspaper reviews. I have not examined those identified by Eddie, but they mostly look like academic ones. The book is now about 15 years old, which means that it may be due for a new edition, but age for a work of this kind is not necessarily a reason for declaring it new useless. Anyway, if it was notable when published it probably still is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, I'm confused, why would their being academic reviews be a problem when considering NBOOK? All that is required is "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" last I checked Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews listed above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews. If anything it tries too hard to show significant coverage and the article can be trimmed to have less long quotes. (But that's not an AFD issue.) Archrogue (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As multiple reviews above have it meeting book notability requirement. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2021 (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.