Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World


 * 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 Speedy keep. No valid reason given for the nomination. "This is a silly book and stupid" is not a valid argument. bogdan (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a silly book and stupid. Wikipedia is losing its integrity and crediblty by keeping this article up. Plus I found out this article got deleted because it is nonnotable. Tversl (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This book is notable; has even been in the news. Kingpin13 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But it got deleted earlier in 2007 for being nonnotable:  Why the difference now? Tversl (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, as can notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-- The article is now sourced with reliable sources (The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, and Advertising Age) meeting WP:N. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But its a stupid book. Tversl (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, saying "I don't like it" is an invalid reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - No viable reason for deletion given. "Silly & stupid" == WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia's integrity and credibility is irrelevant. The fact that a previous article was deleted is also irrelevant, since it doesn't resemble the current article in content and sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Now that the article has reliable sources, there's no reason to delete on grounds of notability, and the nominator hasn't really provided any other rationale than that they don't like it. I'm thinking this one might be headed for snowball territory. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if I'm not mistaken, nominating this article for deletion was the nominator's first edits. I say this as a statement of fact, and not to imply anything. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what your implying mister, and I dont like it. I just saw this article yesterday and I felt it was stupid.  Plus, so three newspapers report on it, including one big tabloid.  So what, they dont count for much.  For notable, this article should have TIME or Washington Post or something.  Brit newspapers arent anything special.  Tversl (talk) 18:10, 15 April 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.