Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermere


 * 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. Withdrawn &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Intermere

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD'd by me, de-PROD'd by article creator who hasn't edited in two years but turned up two hours after my edit to de-PROD as a minor edit with no edit summary and no discussion anywhere else. It's not obligatory to give a reason for de-PROD, of course, but it is customary.

Anyway, my PROD rationale still applies: I can't find any indication that this book meets WP:NBOOK. I have checked for reviews at Newspapers.com, Highbeam (long shot but one never knows), Google, GBooks, and GNews, and found only one trivial name-drop even mentioning the book. Author doesn't have an article to redirect to presently.

In nominating this for AfD, I also checked JSTOR and Taylor & Francis. Both have hits, mostly for topics unrelated to this book (Greek iambic poetry and optics, for example). T&F has one hit that looks related based on the title "Early American technological Edens", but I can't access it so I can't confirm how in-depth it discusses this book.

In any case, one single source is not enough to hang an article on, so even if it is in-depth, it's insufficient. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The book is also discussed in Bakazaka (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The T&F source raised by the nominator is a book review of an academic book about technological utopian writing. The review contains a trivial mention of Intermere in a footnote listing the works discussed in the reviewed book. The reviewed book itself contains two passing mentions of Intermere. Bakazaka (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and OBK. If the nominator can only find one mention, and most of his results are for unrelated topics, he does not know how to use a search engine properly. The number is much greater than one:       etc etc etc. There is a book review in The Reprint Bulletin  (which I found very quickly) and other coverage for this 1901 book by William Alexander Taylor (1837-1912). The book seems to have been reprinted many times. [I would like someone with a subscription to tell me what these are: . James500 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for linking to those Google searches, . All of those results except from the one you linked in The Reprint Bulletin (which did not appear for me; perhaps you're aware that Google sometimes moderates its searches depending on the geographic location of the searcher?) appear to be trivial mentions or records of ads, which as you must know do not satisfy NBOOK or GNG. However, The Reprint Bulletin source in addition to the Configurations source provided by does appear to be enough, so I will withdraw. Side note: it's she, not he. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (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.