Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epitaphs for the Living


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Epitaphs for the Living

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book. The references provided cannot be verified (no links), and the links at the bottom have nothing directly to do with the subject. Frankly, the article appears to be somewhat promotional. No indication that this book has met the criteria of notability standards for books. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several references can be found using this Google News archive search, although only the Google preview shows what the articles have to say about the book. The links are to preview pages that generally do not include the text that refers to the book. The book won the Stanley Marcus Award for Best Book Design   for George Lenox  from the Texas Institute of Letters in 1990, according to this page. I think the reviews and other references to the book shown by the Google News archive search are enough to demonstrate notability. The references in the article seem intended to define some of the terms used, such as "medical narrative". An absence of a link does not mean that a reference cannot be verified. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. If Diffa granted start-up funds it's a good bet the book got plenty of coverage. For those unaware the AIDS pandemic started widespread awareness roughly 1983 and this was published several year later when the disease was still quite a mystery - as it's a syndrome of diseases largely unseen in the "first" world affecting people who generally had heathcare access, etc. I find it hard to believe that at least a handful of reviews in every major city don't exist. Also here are numerous mentions from Google books. -- Banj e  b oi   03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage is significant in the books, and I agree with the reasoning that it surely got ample news coverage as well.  D r e a m Focus  20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as significant coverage has been identified by those above me. Meets WP:BK. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (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.