Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints

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The result was Withdrawn‎. Sources that I couldn't find due to authorial confusion have been added and I clarified this on the page itself. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. It is briefly covered in a listing in an issue of Issues in Law & Medicine, but not significantly, and there is an actual review in Booklist available on ProQuest, but that is only one and NBOOK needs two. It is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series, which is notable from my searches. Redirect there? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be an earlier book with the same name [1], as shown, from 1989. The book is widely cited [2], [3], [4], [5], could it be covered by an academic notability criteria? Being mentioned in at least three sources from different years implies some critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is WP:TEXTBOOKS, which suggests that academic book notability is less restrictive than other books (which I agree with), however that is applied inconsistently in practice and I am not sure if that precludes having more than one review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is a bit confusing since it appears this book has been republished multiple times (same series, same publisher), with a different editor each time. Ex. Reviews for 1995 edited by Wekesser, Carol or 1989 edited by Bernards, Neal. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  ...is there any way to verify if these editions have mostly the same content? Very weird. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, so after checking on archive.org (where there is a copy of all the different editions), they do seem to be largely or thematically the same book. Well, at least one of these appears to pass NBOOK. So I guess I withdraw my nomination. Very confusing though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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.