Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23 Years
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Difficult issue. WP:CSB applies, and this appears to be an issue that many do not want to comment or touch on. Some sort of merge may be appropriate, but I do not see any other way of closing this. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 23 Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and consider merge into the article on the author. this is a nomination ignoring the WP:Deletion Policy, that deletion is the last resort, and that a suitable merge or redirect is always preferred. No reason given why this would be inappropriate, and merge/redirect is always available when the author has an article DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, the article on the author is also very poorly sourced. I would agree to merge the content to that article, but that does not solve the problem that much of the content is inadequately sourced and would need to be removed, e.g. the sentence asserting that "Dashti’s opinion against most of his countrymen's beliefs put his life in danger." Cs32en Talk to me 05:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - hmm, maybe I should bring up at Village Pump the idea of adding a JSTOR search onto Template:Findsources. I can't recommend merging, since there is no sourced content here, but the book seems to be a little notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2011 (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.