Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Monomyth


 * 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. Consensus is that sources found provide evidence of notability. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The American Monomyth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article does not state notability. I did a quick Google search on the article to see if I could find any sources and I couldn't. I would contact the initial editor before tagging but they have no edits since 2007 and there is a notice on their userpage saying they have retired. I therfore think that this article should be deleted on notability grounds. Oddbodz (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are some RS , including an article in The New York Times . Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Specifically citable sources include this book (pp.42-44) and this one (pp.8-10).  I suppose there's some argument to be had about whether to style the article after The American Monomyth, the book, or after the American monomyth, the concept explored by the book.  But that's an editorial determination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)*Keep but those supporting a rescue should actually provide inline citations, rather than telling the rest of us how it can be done.
 * Keep – Per the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and the first result is a book review from the New York Times.  D r e a m Focus  01:51, 2 December 2011 (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.