| Revision as of 18:31, 18 July 2007 editZagalejo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,261 editsm typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:01, 19 July 2007 edit undoCIreland (talk | contribs)Administrators19,691 editsm →[]: typoNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| **While true, that fact in my opinion only adds to its notability, rather than detracts from it. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | **While true, that fact in my opinion only adds to its notability, rather than detracts from it. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yeah, that was my point, basically. I want to keep the article, too. ] 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | :::Yeah, that was my point, basically. I want to keep the article, too. ] 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' The contributors to this book establish |
*'''Keep''' The contributors to this book establish its notability per criterion 5 of ] and probably criterion 1 could be easily satisfied through print (rather than online) sources. ]. 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', per Zagalejo and CIreland.--] 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', per Zagalejo and CIreland.--] 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 02:01, 19 July 2007
Kesey's Garage Sale
- Kesey's Garage Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article about a novel which does not assert notability, and only briefly rehashes the plot. Gilliam 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I think the consensus has been that books by notable authors aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't see any specific notability for this book. --Haemo 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to say Keep. Google Books and Google Scholar suggest that the work has received a fair amount of attention by literary critics and pop culture scholars. I've also found a substantial (six column) review from the New York Times (Mordecai Richler, "A catch-all collection largely of detritus." 7 October 1973) and a two page review from The Nation (Jerry Griswold, "Plain-Speaking Allegory" 23 February 1974). Now, I don't have complete access to all of those sources, so I'm not going to be able to expand the article by myself, but I'd be damned if this doesn't pass WP:BK. Zagalejo 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: Note that Kesey was not the sole author of this work (which, BTW, is not a novel, as the nominator asserts). It also contains contributions by Arthur Miller, Allen Ginsberg, and Hugh Romney. . Zagalejo 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- While true, that fact in my opinion only adds to its notability, rather than detracts from it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was my point, basically. I want to keep the article, too. Zagalejo 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The contributors to this book establish its notability per criterion 5 of WP:BK and probably criterion 1 could be easily satisfied through print (rather than online) sources. CIreland. 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per Zagalejo and CIreland.--JayJasper 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We're nominating Ken Kesey books now? Madness. Notable book by an extremely notable author, easily passes any remotely reasonable notability criteria (e.g. WP:BK). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)