Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net Locality


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Net Locality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not meet notability criteria for books (WP:Notability (books)). There are only two references. One just mentions the book, without the review, the other one doesn't even mention the book at all. Most of the article is just book content. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per, , , and . SL93 (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * delete  it's notable, but that's not the only criterion for keeping an article. The content is inappropriate, from the first sentence (it is not a textbook in the sense of a book intended for teaching opurposes to accompany a course) through all the overdetailed content, all the way to the last, which summarizes worthless reviews on goodreads and blurbs.  I urge SL93 to write a proper article, referring to the actual published reviews, DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those things should cause an article to be deleted. You want it deleted because it needs to be cleaned up, which is not within policy. As someone who has been editing on Wikipedia since 2006, you should know this. SL93 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (but COI) - Notable plus existing [somewhat usable] substance plus potential for improvement is a combination that seems to usually point to keep, but I should disclose that I do know the book's authors (which presents a COI but also means I've been exposed to sufficient reviews, talks, references, etc. of/about this book to convince me of its legitimate notability). --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles on notable subjects with some reusable content are kept, irrespective of the amount of cleanup which they require. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2013 (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.