Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Law (book)

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 Gnangarra 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Law (book)

Wild Law (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has two sources, one which discusses the temr and the author (Cormac Cullinan) but does not explicitly discuss the book, the other does not mention the title at all. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid sub-article of Wild law. This Guardian article discusses the term in dept], this lists off a number of independent reviews and blurbs about the book's importance, this article specifically cites the book as an example of a publication behind the ideas it contains, a university conference was based around it, and on and on and on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, discussing the termis not the same as discussing the book. You know that. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I do, which is why that was only one aspect of my comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have now improved the article with: names of respected scholars and thinkers (three of whom are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles written about them, including a Nobel Peace Laureate) who have written about the book; non-trivial mention in several legal publications and national newspapers; and several major conferences based on the actual book itself with speakers who are members of the British parliament, professors and heads of legal departments at universities, and other distinguished and renowned individuals. Do let me know if you need more independent verification of the noteworthiness of this book and I will provide it. --Lesley Fairbairn 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• That is what is needed. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain ^t/c 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article reads like an advert for the book, which is not what WP is for. That said, it seems notable, but until the "spammy" feeling can be dealt with, I have to go with weak delete. No prejudice to a keep or a recreation if it is cleaned up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, too promotional in nature. Realkyhick 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Can there be many books upon which conferences and workshops are based for 4 successive years, with the participation of members of Her Majesty’s Government, British university institutions, the UK Environmental Law Association, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the head of the European Environment Agency, to name just a few? This book is the focus of international discussion, is directly referred to in national newspapers, and is affecting legal outcomes. Based on the ideas outlined in the book, a body of legal opinion is proposing what are being called "wild laws", which would speak for birds and animals, and even rivers and nature. One of the first was introduced last September, when a community of about 7,000 people in Pennsylvania, in the US, adopted what is called Tamaqua Borough Sewage Sludge Ordinance, 2006. It was hardly an event to set the world alight, except for two things: it refuses to recognise corporations' rights to apply sewage sludge to land, but it recognises natural communities and ecosystems within the borough as "legal persons" for the purposes of enforcing civil rights. According to Thomas Linzey, the lawyer from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, who helped draft it, this is historic. See the article in The Chronicle Herald (Halifax, Nova Scotia), January, 2007, entitled 'When does a treee have rights?' (which directly refers to Cullinan and his book, Wild Law) about Pennsylvania Borough becoming the “First Municipality in the United States to Recognize the Rights of Nature”. The Chronicle Herald describes it as "one of the most important events of 2006". --Lesley Fairbairn 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm sure the author and the idea deserve their own articles, however I'm not convinced about the book having a separate article. Addhoc 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It needs cleanup, but there are sources establishing notability. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the sourcing was Ok from the first, but now it is certainly clear.DGG 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - don't understand the rationale for having a sub-article in the context of the main article being a stub. Addhoc 12:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well referenced and there is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 00:40, 25 April 2007 (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.