Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outlaw Platoon

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. Tone 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw Platoon

[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)

Article about a book, not properly demonstrating enough

primary source content from the author's own former employer, and two are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a limited circulation local-interest television talk show and a podcast, which means fully two thirds of the footnotes here are not notability-supporting sources. And of the just two acceptable third-party third-person media footnotes, one is a piece of "local guy does stuff" human interest coverage in his own local media market, which is not evidence of nationalized significance. So the only source that's actually starting to get somewhere is a capsule review in Kirkus Reviews, but that isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly get a book over the notability bar if it's the only source that's actually contributing any real notability points. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's also Publishers Weekly, it reached at least #14 on the NY Times bestseller list, and it's referred to in The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, among other brief mentions in books published by reliable publishers. It's reviewed in some military journals/periodicals, but I'm not sure how independent they are of the military. Tiny review in the Washington Times, which, well, ain't the Post. I always hope to find stuff beyond Kirkus and Publishers Weekly... Caro7200 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote the page, so of course I think it's notable. But NBOOK says you need two or more reliable sources, and bestseller lists count as a reliable source. So [1], [2], good to go. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a spinoff of the AfD for the author. Clearly meets GNG per the above sources and [3] [4] [5] [6]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:NBOOK. I happen to think it's rather too permissive a guideline, but we have 2+ reviews here so that's a pass. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:15, 15 September 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.