| Revision as of 23:30, 9 March 2008 editJuJube (talk | contribs)44,091 edits →A hand in the bush← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:34, 9 March 2008 edit undoOlenWhitaker (talk | contribs)1,097 edits →A hand in the bushNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *<s>'''Delete''' I've never seen a whole article in first person before. The source doesn't seem to mention the book at all, and there's no page on the author herself. I'm sure that this book can be a ''hand''y reference, but as it stands, it doesn't seem to be the subject of any ''in depth'' coverage in reliable sources. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)</s> | *<s>'''Delete''' I've never seen a whole article in first person before. The source doesn't seem to mention the book at all, and there's no page on the author herself. I'm sure that this book can be a ''hand''y reference, but as it stands, it doesn't seem to be the subject of any ''in depth'' coverage in reliable sources. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)</s> | ||
| *'''Keep''' Seems to be a notable enough book now, just needs to be <s>stretched out</s> expanded. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Seems to be a notable enough book now, just needs to be <s>stretched out</s> expanded. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per above...especially the part about ''in depth'' coverage. ] (]) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | *<s>'''Delete''' per above...especially the part about ''in depth'' coverage. ] (]) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)</s> | ||
| : '''Keep'''. The new version of the article cites a reference and sticks to the basic facts. I would say it now meets the criteria for a proper stub article. ] (]) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' Looks like we've all got dirty minds. The article was apparently intended to be funny: "problems with the book involve that it's a lot of fluff"; "seems to lack any real hard information"; "long-term considerations don't enter into it"; "this act can be about trust and love and all those gooey things"; oh yeah, and "in depth" snicker snicker ] (]) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Looks like we've all got dirty minds. The article was apparently intended to be funny: "problems with the book involve that it's a lot of fluff"; "seems to lack any real hard information"; "long-term considerations don't enter into it"; "this act can be about trust and love and all those gooey things"; oh yeah, and "in depth" snicker snicker ] (]) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I added a reliable source for this before the nom brought this to AfD, and, as I pointed out in my edit summary, again before the AfD nomination, there are more reliable sources at which show notability. The nominator doesn't give any valid deletion rationale - the only complaints seem to be about content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than about whether an article should exist on this subject. ] (]) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I added a reliable source for this before the nom brought this to AfD, and, as I pointed out in my edit summary, again before the AfD nomination, there are more reliable sources at which show notability. The nominator doesn't give any valid deletion rationale - the only complaints seem to be about content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than about whether an article should exist on this subject. ] (]) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:34, 9 March 2008
A hand in the bush
- A hand in the bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
While the book itself might be notable, this article is unsalvageable; it's a book review written in the first person, which seems to not have been noticed when an editor removed the prod I placed on this article. If it can be rewritten from scratch, that would be okay, but the article right now needs to go. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) The article was redone to remove the first-person review and instead is now a somewhat empty article that still contains a strong claim of notability. I'd invite people to review their votes. JuJube (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I've never seen a whole article in first person before. The source doesn't seem to mention the book at all, and there's no page on the author herself. I'm sure that this book can be a handy reference, but as it stands, it doesn't seem to be the subject of any in depth coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)- Keep Seems to be a notable enough book now, just needs to be
stretched outexpanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Delete per above...especially the part about in depth coverage. OlenWhitaker (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The new version of the article cites a reference and sticks to the basic facts. I would say it now meets the criteria for a proper stub article. OlenWhitaker (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like we've all got dirty minds. The article was apparently intended to be funny: "problems with the book involve that it's a lot of fluff"; "seems to lack any real hard information"; "long-term considerations don't enter into it"; "this act can be about trust and love and all those gooey things"; oh yeah, and "in depth" snicker snicker Mandsford (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I added a reliable source for this before the nom brought this to AfD, and, as I pointed out in my edit summary, again before the AfD nomination, there are more reliable sources at Google books which show notability. The nominator doesn't give any valid deletion rationale - the only complaints seem to be about content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than about whether an article should exist on this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — If you agree that the book itself is a legitimate subject, but your only problem is with the way it's written, why are you so hasty to delete? Instead of doing the lazy thing and destroying someone's hard work, why not rewrite it yourself? Or if you don't know anything about it, tag it for a rewrite and let someone else do it--or perhaps learn enough about it yourself to be able to do a good rewrite, expanding your own knowledge in the process? I fail to see how deleting this is going to help the project. And shouldn't that be our criteria--not following a bunch of bureaucratic rules, but rather doing what helps the project? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dubbing a first-person review full of silly innuendo someone else's hard work is laughable. It would have been better to delete the article and start over and get the silly crap out of history, but apparently anyone that actually wants to delete an article is a "bureaucrat". In any case, I've invited people to review the article and will most likely withdraw this nom, but I still think it should have been deleted and that actual authors more familiar with the subject should have taken a crack at it, but apparently keeping the history of idiot vandals is more important than writing an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)