Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberspies (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberspies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only references provided are to the book itself. No substantive discussion in reliable independent published sources. Article was already deleted once. That it is back smells like promotion. A loose necktie (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A loose necktie: Page creator here! A couple things to point out:
1). The references are to published reviews in Kirkus Review and Publishers Weekly. The fact that the titles are the same as the book itself is because of the naming convention of the reviewing institutions. Per WP:NBOOK, book notability can be defined by (bold emphasis mine) "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." These are two reviews from established review sources, not self-published websites or author promotional material. I understand that there could be dispute over the establishment of notability off of only two published reviews, but as the current guidelines stand, the book has met sufficient notability criteria.
2). I can't access the previous version of this page that was deleted, but the previous AfD is from 2005, while this book was published in 2016, leading me to believe that the topics were different, despite the identical page name.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or want to discuss this further! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB; other sources also exist (e.g. [1], [2]). As has already been pointed out, the nomination is almost entirely based on misapprehensions: the references are not to the book, and the article deleted in 2006 was on a different topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added numerous reviews from notable authors to the article. It certainly warrants notability. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2020 (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.