Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patterns of Civilization

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patterns of Civilization

[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)

Non-notable work. PepperBeast (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet WP:BK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning here... WP:BK mentions that if it is taught in schools than it is notable for academics. This book was taught in schools and there are teacher's additions and cheat-sheets online for it. Does that count? FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:BK is that a book must be the subject of study as opposed to being a textbook used to study a different topic. For example when a Dicken’s novel is taught in schools it itself is studied. When Introduction to Calculus is taught it is being used to teach calculus not to study the text itself. I guess if you can make the case this is the subject of study then it meets WP:BK. Or maybe this is only my view point. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one source I could find is fascinating; this piece of mind-bending hysteria from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. It does a good job of breaking down the textbook itself, and the manner in which the book presents information for students (its probably enough to be considered significant coverage of the book, rather than by the book). But hot-damn... it is so outrageously biased I'm having trouble seeing how we could ever consider it a reliable source, despite the manner of its publication. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:45, 5 August 2021 (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.