Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) at 01:29, 12 April 2008 (Sorting per CAT:AFD using AFDsort). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable book, which I cannot find anything reliable on google. Page orphaned and has no context. Authour fails WP:BIO Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Not every book needs a WP entry. WP is not Books in Print. eaolson (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple reviews of the book from academic journals show up on the very first page of google results for "Crisis in the Built Environment"; it thus passes the primary notability criterion. In general I think authors of notable books are presumed to be notable and so Jamel Akbar and this article could stand alone, but if this is his only notable work, I wouldn't object to merging the book article into his bio article.
    • Watts, Donald (August 1992), "Reviewed work(s): Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24 (3): 509–510, retrieved 2008-04-09
    • Çelik, Zeynep (October–December 1991), "Reviewed work(s): Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111 (4): 803–804, retrieved 2008-04-09{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) --- Cheers, cab (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete 19 GS references for a book, and only one or two reviews in specialised journals, is routine, not notable, for an academic book. 130 Libraries in worldcat; respectable, a perfectly good book to count towards someone's notability but not individually significant. DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have it exactly backwards. Reviews of a book in journals (specialized or otherwise) can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book. It is less clear how those reviews can be used to write a neutral encyclopedia article about the book's author. So the book may not "count towards" Akbar's notability, but the reviews cited by cab do demonstrate the book's notability. 152.3.246.246 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]