Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter (novel)

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 Bryant 08:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter (novel)

Hunter (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable book by racist William Luther Pierce that doesn't even merit a mention in the body of his lengthy Wikipedia article. Most of the few Wiki articles that link to it do so as questionable entries in "See also" section. THF 17:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - the book may be distasteful, but two independent sources are cited for critical commentary, therefore establishing notability per criterion 1 of WP:BK. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. One of those sources is a self-published book that does not meet WP:RS. I have yet to track down the Gardell to see if it has any relevance, but it's not cited for anything notable in the article. -- THF 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep One of two books that cover a "strong" topic from a different viewpoint. — 71.48.195.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The book is quite notable. It got plenty of media mentions in coverage of the OKC bombing trials since either McVeigh or Nichols or both (I can't remember which) supposedly had it/read it. William Luther Pierce is unquestionably one of the most influential overt racists of the past 40 years. Significant works of his (like a completed novel) in that vein are pretty much inherently notable. Mwelch 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The book is notable. Perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the main article because of the existence of this one here, so nothing can be deduced from that. Self published, but has received independent attention. The author (fortunately) wrote only two novels, so both are worth including. DGG 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable book with just enough media attention. We might want more on literary criticism of it but it doesn't merit deletion. We can't delete subjects that disagree with our own views. User:Dimadick

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.