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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crescent Directive[edit]

The Crescent Directive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The book does not satisfy WP:BKCRIT. With two blog reviews of no particular noteworthiness, and a discussion on an internet radio show, I do not see why the book, nor the author, merit an article. Furthermore, the publisher of the book created both the book's and the author's article on Wikipedia. Finally, the book does not meet the Wikipedia's threshold standards in any way, i.e. it does not have an ISBN number nor is it available in libraries. Stamscaney (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You might want to look into potentially AfDing the author's page as well. It has many of the same issues with notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A book doesn't have to meet threshhold standards to become notable- those are generally just there to indicate that if a book has an ISBN or is in any libraries, that sources are more likely to exist than if they didn't. There are always rare instances where a book doesn't have an ISBN or isn't in any libraries and passes notability guidelines, but this isn't that instance. There just isn't any coverage to show that this book is notable. I'd probably argue the same for its author as well, which is why I'm not suggesting redirecting. The author doesn't seem to really be notable either, but I'll try to find sources. If he's notable then I'll come back and suggest a redirect, but I'm kind of doubting it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure enough, he's not notable either and I've opened up an AfD for him as well here. Tokyogirl7 9 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the author page. It is not helpful to have two articles; since the author has done other things than write the book, that would be the article to keep. (assuming we do keep the author page) DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see a reason for merging if the author's article itself is up for AfD as well. If the book isn't notable - and it isn't - then let's just delete the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2013 (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.