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.
Comment -- I do not think we can have an article on every academic book published, however well reviewed. Furthermore, all we have is a rather useless stub. In deference to those who have voted above, I am not voting delete, but if we are to keep it we need, we need a lot more about the book's argument. Currnetly iit is not even an ADVERT.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
What an odd comment: it's good that "it is not even an ADVERT."
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - It looks like a book with multiple independent reliable source reviews.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article was and still is a stub, but stubs for notable works can always be expanded. The only time I'd argue that a work shouldn't have its own entry is if the work is already well covered in the creator's article (as in the case of biographies or authors known for only one work where the work and author haven't been the subject of a lot of coverage outside of each other) or in another suitable location. (IE, in the case of derivative works where it's substantially identical to the main work and wouldn't justify a content fork, as in the case where a coloring book edition is put out of a children's book) In this case the article can be expanded and I've gotten a little bit of it started.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:51, 15 February 2017 (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.