Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English


 * 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The result was   Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is large list. Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub and minus the list. We can't include the list, even if we wanted to. We might as well plagiarise the whole book and have done with it. I am going to go ahead and stub it right now as it is a copyright issue. To read the pre-stubbed version go to: --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as a stub. The book is certainly notable but the contents don't belong on wikipedia as such a large list.  Here is the book's listing in British Library which qualifies the book as notable under WP:BK.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:BK doesn't say that a book is notable if it's in the British Library. Most books are in the BL. It says that a book that's not in the BL is almost certainly not notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. I guess I saw the rule to be used for inclusion instead of exclusion.  I still think it should be kept as I still believe it's notable for the other reasons given.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The British Library's remit is to catalogue and keep a copy of every single book published in the UK (see British Library). I am sure that they have a whole load of non-notable rubbish stored in their expensive, fireproof vaults. Having a catalogue entry certainly does not confer notability but it is a useful reference for verifiability of things like publication dates. I think the reference which establishes notability is the review by The Independent. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, AfD isn't for cleanup. The article was obviously notable and an article being too long isn't grounds for deletion under WP:DELETE.  Thanks for trying to help Wikipedia clean and I know your actions were in good faith but I'd check out that article before marking an article again.  I'm not the best wiki editor but I can help you decide if it should be marked, if you want, in the future.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please Close Discussion as Keep--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the stubbed article. Well saved, DanielRigal! JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable book. --Boston (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per invalid nomination reason.Smallman12q (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, referenced and notable, a mis-deletion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, ISBN number and its a published work, its of note reporting on it, well soruced stubTroyster87 (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * snow keep as suitable stub.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 3 March 2009 (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.