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. MBisanztalk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
So? How does that contribute to the notability? Or are you claiming that they are such overwhelmingly important people that anything they write is notable?
RayAYang (
talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. There are scholarly reviews for this book
here and
here.
Johnfos (
talk) 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep + retitle Per Johnfos. The notability of this book doesn't appear to be problematic.
Ecoleetage (
talk) 06:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
keep+retitle. In addition to the reviews Johnfos mentions, the book was backed by
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and published by Springer, a heavyweight scientific publisher. However I'd rename the article using the book's full title Energy and American Society – Thirteen Myths, as Energy and American Society is too broad, e.g. it might be used to sum up analyses of energy consumption in the USA, history of energy usage and links to other social trends such as women's lib, policies, academic analyses, public attitudes, etc. --
Philcha (
talk) 10:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename if the claims of being backed by notable sources as said by
User:Philcha are true and accurate. RingtailedFox •
Talk •
Contribs 23:42, 19 November 2008 (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.