Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopped At Stalingrad


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stopped At Stalingrad

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not qualify under WP:BK. Feshbach Fan 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also nominating Image:Haysto.jpg for same reason. Feshbach Fan 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not wualify under WP:BK, and furthermore is a clear and definite advertisement.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A lazy article, which I am improving; shouldn't be held against it--the subject is N, not the article.. I've removed the detailed contents, which is the inappropriately advertisment part, and added references so far to about 8 reviews in academic journals, with quotes from some of them. Reviews demonstrate N of books. as condition (1) of WP:BK.DGG 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is present in 398 libraries, according to WorldCat including many public and it seems like all major academic libraries and a great many college libraries as well. [[User:DGG|DGG] 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep War historians consider this book to be a significant contribution to the study of the Battle of Stalingrad. It has also been reviewed in various military history magazines, but I don't know if these are on line.  I will look through my stack when I get a moment, also.  KP Botany 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:BK, as noted by DGG and KP Botany. Victoriagirl 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to meet WP:BK. -- Charlene 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the criterion "...subject of multiple, non-trivial published works... with at least some of these works serving a general audience," I'll have to recommend weak keep. All of the refs recently added to the article do not serve a general audience with the exception of the Times Literary Supplement cite.  That last cite just barely qualifies the book under WP:BK.  "One" isn't exactly the same as "some", but for a pub as significant as the TLR, it'll do.  IMHO it fails the other WP:BK criteria. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As an aside, I would admonish the nom for making a disruptive point, but unfortunately, I do think it needs to be noted that it's disingenuous of the WP community to assert that an article on Hayward's book is worthy of inclusion while Hayward himself is not (see here here) for more. Seems to me like that's trying to have your cake and eat it too.  I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I still think that this should be pointed out. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it upon myself to clean up the Joel Hayward article, and it looks like it's actually going to survive (nope, it's been AfD'd). It still needs work though, and some of y'all might be interested in making some improvements (but not me, I've had my fill). Groupthink 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per previous comments. The article still needs a lot of cleanup, though. Edward321 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:BK as the subject of multiple, non-trivial works about it. I found a few reviews just by a quick Google search. Also, although WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really a legit argument for whether a subject is suitably encyclopedic, all the same the fact that this book gets 692 hits on Google shows it's fairly well-known. --Ace of Swords 21:29, 20 June 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.