In Praise of Hard Industries : I don't see any evidence that this book is widely considered significant.  A single book review does not, I think, confer notability.  At best this would be a smerge to Eamonn Fingleton , though I am not sure that should exist either.  Guy ( help! - typo? ) 15:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete : I found this article that might cite the book under its reprint title: [1] , but it's paywalled.   Otherwise nothing found.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Ireland ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources Galbraith, James K. (1999-09-12).  "Made in the U.S.A."  The New York Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 .  The review notes: "These are provocative arguments not very persuasively made. In Praise of Hard Industries is anecdotal, spurning statistics or other corroboration. It is overstated: American manufacturing isn't exactly dead, something that, reading between the lines here about Kodak and Boeing, one learns. The policy prescriptions (savings tax incentives, tariffs) are shallow."  Campbell, Duncan (2001).  "In praise of hard industries: Why manufacturing, not the information economy, is the key to future prosperity".  International Labour Review .  140 (2): 215–216.  ProQuest 223996617 .  The review notes: "This book fits comfortably within the comparative-styles-of-capitalism genre, and many of its central observations are not necessarily new. The author's critique of the short-term focus on profits rather than a long-term focus on productive efficiency is a case in point. ... But to equate the information economy with the knowledge-based service sector alone, as the author implicitly does, is excessively narrow. Information and communication technologies have transformed the manufacturing sector itself - in fact, in ways lucidly described by the author, who nonetheless stops short of showing how manufacturing is very much a part of the information economy."  Buchholz, Todd G. (1999-09-20).  "Bookshelf: A Fondness for Factories. In Praise of Hard Industries by Eamonn Fingleton".  The Wall Street Journal .  ProQuest 1798411839 .  The review notes: "Mr. Fingleton's "praise of hard industries" goes like this: Economics that focus on manufacturing are more durable, more dependable and better protected from competition that economies that rely on "soft industries" like, well, software, finance, health care and other services. ... But even if we accept Mr. Fingleton's assertions, doesn't the consumer benefit from competition?"  Sixel, L.M. (1999-10-10).  "A sophomoric argument for manufacturing" .  Houston Chronicle .  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 .  The review notes: "But In Praise of Hard Industries gives the impression that manufacturing is about as dead as a doornail and must make a comeback if the United States is to be great once again.The book, written by financial journalist Eamonn Fingleton, sets up a straw man - the service industry, which he refers to as "post-industrialism. " ... Fingleton could be excused if he had done some original research to reach his conclusions. But he hasn't, relying mostly on previously published newspaper and magazine articles. Newspaper reporters, of course, are great sources of knowledge, but I was expecting something more original - and profound - from the book."  Taylor, Gilbert (1999-09-15).  "In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity" .  Booklist .  Vol.  96, no. 2.  p. 201.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: "For those dubious about the march of laissez-faire, Fingleton provides an infopacked argument with a nationalistic, Buchananite accent."  Farris, Dale F. (1999-08-13).  "In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity" .  Library Journal .  Vol.  124, no. 13.  p. 108.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: "Fingleton (Blindside), former editor with the Financial Times and Forbes, bravely challenges the current tendency to be awestruck by the information or postindustrial economy with this solid work on the many strengths of a manufacturing-based economy. ... An important work; highly recommended for all academic libraries." "In Praise of Hard Industries" .  Publishers Weekly .  Vol.  246, no. 31.  1999-08-02.  p. 65.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: "Bolstered by close analysis and chock full of intriguing examples of manufacturing triumphs and untapped opportunities, Fingleton's sobering report deserves close scrutiny by CEOs, labor leaders and policy makers."  Boaz, David (November 1999).  "In Praise of Hard Industries" .  The American Enterprise .  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: "In a book that cites as authorities cranks ranging from Germaine Greer to Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan, it's no surprise to run across crank ideas from the mundane--like the Holy Grail of renewable energy--to the truly novel:" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow In Praise of Hard Industries to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could we get a further assessment of newly found sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Full length reviews in NYT and WSJ, and in at least one academic journal, with Library Journal / Booklist / Publishers Weekly to round it out, is a clear WP:NBOOK pass.  Jfire ( talk ) 04:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I added the Houston Chronicle source from Cunard's list and another from the National Post.   A lot could be fleshed out from those sources but notability should no longer be in question.  BBQboffin ( talk ) 03:30, 31 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep