Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Dumb World: The Onion's Atlas of the Planet Earth


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Our Dumb World: The Onion's Atlas of the Planet Earth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

not notable, no inline citations, not encyclopedic serioushat 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per good research done below. i think i need sleep, i didnt even do proper research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC) *Delete book is listed at the article on the Onion. that is enough for this funny but nonnotable book. their first book was a work of genius, and got lots of attention. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Got to NYT "The maps are supremely unreliable. Plausible though it may sound, Norway does not have a Bay of Smelt. The Bahamas do not include the Gift-Shop Islands, and Japan’s tourist attractions do not include a 400-foot statue of Hello Kitty, which, The Onion assures its readers, is the country’s “primary deity.”",  making the NYT Best Seller list for miscellaneous , getting paperback (number 9) in the NYT list at  ryc. Meets notability especially since besst-seller status on NYT has generally been considered sufficient.   Collect (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - page already mentions a couple of reviews by major newspapers, and there's more lurking in the Google News archives; if it's made a bestseller list too, then it's notable enough for me. Multiple independent sources mention this book. As for whether it's encyclopaedic, I think it is - wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) turn a blind eye to stuff that's funny. bobrayner (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like it was widely reviewed. If all those bacon books could become GAs, surely this article has some hope. Some of those cleanup tags are pretty ridiculous - "Its introduction may be too long"? Zagal e jo^^^ 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a close call. The book is notable, not only because of its best seller status but because it was the subject of reviews and other detailed discussion in multiple independent sources including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Newsweek, the Denver Post, etc. Dlduncan2 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - High profile title = Wikipedia users likely to be interested. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Widely read publication by comedy writers from a notable website. Keep Our Dumb Century as well.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2010 (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.