Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Eat to Live
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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How to Eat to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Text is not notable. Ism schism (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This almost feels like they're advertising the book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have tried to find reliable sources and have been unable to find any to establish notability. It fails WP:BK. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. These are just a few of the many reliable sources found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the works are notable, and Phil Bridger's sources above go a long way to proving it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of these sources show this text to be notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? The first of them has several pages of coverage and the others at least a few paragraphs each, so there is significant coverage, and they are all published by major university presses, so they are independent and reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per convincing research made by Phil Bridger. There is a lot of room for expansion and the sources are reliable. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2010 (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.