Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone fox


 * 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra (Review) 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Stone fox

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No explanation of notability of book, author has no article or oncoming links, prod was removed. Rigadoun (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nom, notability established below. Rigadoun (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Reads like a review or book-jacket blurb. Not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - no sources, no reason for notability, no reason this article should stay.  Zchris87v  05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Um, has anyone actually done any research into this? 270 Amazon customer reviews seems to suggest that this book may deserve an article. I'll see what else I can find. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. For starters, there this, which suggests the book is widely taught in schools. Plus the following should firmly establish notability:
 * An obituary of Gardiner which refers to the book as a "best-seller" and "true modern classic"
 * A review (albeit a poor one) of a made-for-TV movie based on the book
 * Several mentions in scholarly works
 * It was named a New York Times Notable Book of the Year for 1980 (Nov. 30, 1980. p. BR4)
 * It's also mentioned in the book 100 Best Books for Children. I say Strong Keep, although the page should be cleaned up and moved to Stone Fox. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Excellent work, Zagalejo. The author does have an article, it just wasn't wikilinked within the article and was misspelled). Bláthnaid  10:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the spelling threw me off. Clearly notable; withdrawing nom. I added some of the stuff Zagalejo pulled up to establish that in the article. Thanks, Zagalejo. Rigadoun (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2007 (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.