Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationality and Power

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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality and Power

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

The notability of this book is highly questionably. The three citations show nothing apart that it has been referenced by someone else. Two out of the three references are by the author of this book. Possible a self-promotion. There is nothing that indicates great importance within academia, never mind outside academia. Mootros (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm actually finding where this book is often heavily referenced in many peer reviewed journals. ([1], [2], [3])Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had to dig through JSTOR, but I found quite a few reviews from various journals as well as several entries that used this book as a cite. More than one journal described this book as being something that was well used within academia, at least at that point in time. Nowadays? Maybe not, but notability doesn't fade just because it's not used as often anymore.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Particularly in light of citations added by Tokyogirl79, subject satisfies WP:BK & WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it now has review citations and such, it seems to pass depth of coverage and notability criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good work, Tokyogirl. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2012 (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.