Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A hand in the bush


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nom. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A hand in the bush

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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)
 * Withdrawing under slight protest. JuJube (talk) 23:36, 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 • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a notable enough book now, just needs to be stretched out expanded. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 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 &mdash; 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)
 * Almost all Wikipedia articles have been vandalized, do you want us to delete them all and undelete the unvandalized versions? By the way, qualifying user:Overpowered of vandal is a bit overstated. There is a difference between adding "unencyclopedic" content and vandalizing. Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the Guardian source.Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a stub at the most, and has very little if any reason to be hosted by Wikipedia.  Consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: it has book art, release dates, publisher/genre information, even a picture.  It is on its way of becoming a B-class article.  This stub, though, contains too little information to be kept on Wikipedia, and should be deleted.  Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC
 * I suggest that you familiarize with our deletion policy. We have thousands of stubs, this is not a valid reason for deletion .Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Alex, and if you don't follow that friendly suggestion.... Seriously, though, it's probably just as well that this article doesn't have pictures. Some things are best left to the imagination.  Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex, your comment indicates to me that you are unfamiliar with how wikis are supposed to work. People shouldn't be exepcted to create a moderate-length article right off the bat.  Rather, the whole point of a wiki is collaborative editing by the community, which means the article starts out with just a little stub--but you keep it there, so as people stop by they can add their own bit of information to it, so that the article grows organically over time.  Deleting stubs would make that process--which is an inherent part of a wiki--impossible.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (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.