Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Return to Love (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A Return to Love
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page doesn't even bother to describe what it is about, and half the sources are non-committal reviews (with a 30-year span, granted). The other citation is the skeptics dictionary.

I don't think there is much here, but XfD because I'd love to be proved wrong. I didn't find much on search, even filtering out the results for her recent run for president. It's been tagged since 2010. I can't find anything to support it staying around any longer. Kakurokuna (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.192.210 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT. Two reviews in reliable sources is sufficient to sustain notability. This was a bestseller. Page quality issues should be addressed on the article's talk-page. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the author's silly performance last night at the Democratic debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.176.47 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per FOARP and book prominence. The book seems a prominent one both in its field and its overall best-selling status. The author is currently a notable political figure whose personal history and work will be of public interest. Although the deletion request seems in good faith it is kind of hard to figure out why this was even nominated. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a proper WP:BEFORE would have shown reviews in major publications when it was published in 1992, and ongoing coverage in the decades since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, another waste of time for afd tragics (thats ME!!!:)), at the time this was nominated the article showed it met WP:NBOOK (see here), having been a bestseller and being seen as one of the key books to mainstreaming the new age movement, editors above have provided more to emphasise its notableness, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any book that spends 39 weeks on one of the New York Times Bestseller Lists qualifies as notable.  It's also had cultural influence and started its author on a prominent career.  If the article isn't that good, keep improving it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2019 (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.