Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Happy, John

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 per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Happy, John

No viable assertion of notability for this book. As for saying it "inspired the 'Not happy John!' campaign, I suspect it is more likely to have been the other way around. I'm am dubious over that claim and would need to see some evidence. Moondyne 09:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Moondyne 09:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moondyne that there is little if any assertion of sufficient notability. The claim that 'Not happy John!' campaign comes from this book is dubious at best. giggy _(:O) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Margo Kingston. I think that the book did come before the campaign, but don't see how it meets WP:BK. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I seem to recall this book attracting plenty of attention on its own basis along with the campaign as a whole. A quick search of the web, however does not turn up much in the way of RS (as opposed to blogs etc.). Perhaps others will find more and I will hold off on an opinion one way or the other until then. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps I'm wrong. this implies it was the Not happy, Jan! commercial first, the book second and the campaign third. Who to believe? Moondyne 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book was launched by Tony Fitzgerald QC, some of whose comments at the launch were published by The Age, it was reviewed by the Journal of Australian Studies (reprinted by API, here) and by Quadrant magazine (and very likely by all the major Australian newspapers at the time, here's just one review I found in the Sydney Morning Herald), and it also became the inspiration for a significant political campaign, as evidenced here. So I don't think there can be any doubt about notability. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Gatoclass above. Book has been reviewed and discussed at length in Australian newspapers, thus both WP:V and WP:N are met. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - the book is notable, inspiring the campaign and the first signs of anti-Howard resentment from the 2004 election (particularly in his own electorate). JRG (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Gatoclass the book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) as it meets criterion 1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.--Matilda ^talk 22:54, 10 June 2008 (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.