Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agüeybaná (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 20 July 2007 (rmv template-afd closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. CIreland and Zagalejo's points prove its notability. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.