Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird Neighbors


 * 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. Early close as keep per WP:SNOW ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Bird Neighbors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete per Notability (books) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as a notable 19th century American nature classic. There are many, many sources, apart from those in the article. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Books finds over 2,500 references to this classic work. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with the assessment of 202.124.72.86. The article, while lacking a statement of notability before 202.124.72.86's improvements, was easy enough to assess as notable by searching and finding many mentions of it in other sources. I'm afraid the nominator didn't spend much time assessing whether these books were notable. Rkitko (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article expansion work by 202.124.72.xy demonstrates notability. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As mentioned at Articles_for_deletion/Wild_Flowers_Worth_Knowing, old books should be given the benefit of the doubt; there is no need to send other editors scrambling by nominating such articles for deletion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep as the article has easily passed the GNG. New York Times, discussions in several other books? It's a keeper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, this is a notable article.  Wilbysuffolk   Talk to me  20:38, 1 June 2012 (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.