Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-Consuming Artifacts


 * 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. There is a clear consensus that the coverage of this book in reliable sources is sufficient to establish its notability. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-Consuming Artifacts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Long-unreferenced article, not notable per WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think suitable references can be found for this book. As a first example, a 1998 article in Philological Quarterly says "Stanley Fish in his influential Self-Consuming Artifacts" (, via Highbeam, subscription reqd) and another, also via Highbeam, talks of "Fish's oft-cited claim in Self-Consuming Artifacts" . AllyD (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added various references, including some opinions of Fish's book. Google Books and Google Scholar searches turn up more, enough in my view to meet WP:NBOOK. AllyD (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per AllyD's changes. EBstrunk18 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as the refs noted, it was reviewed in English Language Notes and Diacritics. Fish is a very well-known and respected academic, so even if it wasn't notable a merge would be more suitable than deletion, but this book clearly meets notability standards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep with thanks to who has improved the article and demonstrated notability in the process.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:50, 14 April 2014 (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.