Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adding Machine: Collected Essays


 * 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. No arguments dor deletion aside from Stifle. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Adding Machine: Collected Essays

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Overriding WP:PROD proposal by User:Stifle. Rationale given by Stifle is that the article is unreferenced. However the implication of the PROD nomination is that the nominator is of the opinion the topic is either a: not notable or b: does not exist. Either way, the book is by a notable author, William S. Burroughs, and thus the article's continued existence should be covered by a debate, rather than a PROD. Therefore I am putting it under AFD. My opinion is Keep unless policy has changed to forbid such articles. 23skidoo (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are there reliable sources to justify an independent article? Perhaps it needs to be merged with the article on William S. Burroughs or his collected works. Xtzou ( Talk ) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know, I see plenty when I click on the "FIND SOURCES" links above. (I haven't done an AFD nomination for a long time -- this is new). 23skidoo (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then why don't you add them and end the debate? No reason to have an unsourced page on a notable work.  Xtzou ( Talk ) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable book by a notable author. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable work by a notable author – though presumably any sufficiently notable essays in this book could be split into separate articles. ( -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless references added. As ever, the burden of proof is on those seeking to include content to provide proper sourcing. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced from two reviews in Chicago Sun-Times and New York Times. More offline sources from 1986 ought to exist (the back cover shows blurbs from publishers weekly and Detroit Free Press). And it gets cited a lot of times in lots of books. Thus meets WP:NB. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant author, thus thoughts must be significant, should be linked to articles on the essays themselves though. Sadads (talk) 18:05, 4 May 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.