Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Curriculum


 * 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. SpinningSpark 14:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The Hidden Curriculum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its sources are almost all internal to MIT (namely its student paper, which is not a reliable source). There is only one external review apparent online—the one that shows up in JSTOR. If someone has access to BRD, perhaps there might be newspaper reviews from the period? I was surprised after reading such an elaborate (well-written?) article how little currency the book had, especially considering the role of the "hidden curriculum" in sociology of education but perhaps the book just didn't have that great an impact. We don't see much of an impact in the included sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Hopefully this text can find a home on another wiki. czar 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  czar  17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The MIT student newspaper could certainly be considered reliable, not sure why it wouldn't be. It's not the New York Times, but it's also not a blog or The National Enquirer. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Student newspapers are never reliable sources. They do not have any reputation for reliability. And in the chance that our standards were to sink that low, a MIT student newspaper would not be "independent" of the topic—all the sources are affiliated with the university. The point is that it hasn't had widespread external coverage. Books like this normally show their notability through a range of external reviews. czar  01:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Student newspapers are never reliable sources." Can you point me to the policy that says this? If not, then it should be queried on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'll have a look at doing that shortly to get some clarity on the issue. EDIT: If they agree with you I'll change my KEEP to DELETE. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like you posted at RSN already but the answer is because student newspapers do not have a reputation for reliability like professional newspapers or publishers—they can post any sort of content without fact-checking and generally are not reliable for statements of fact in an encyclopedia. That much should be straightforward. would have more to say, in depth. But as I said above, even more important here is the independence—that the MIT student newspaper wrote a book review on a MIT professor's book about MIT student life is not a contribution to the book's notability.  czar  18:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say reliability is not an issue for MIT-derived sources, the problem is independence. You cant demonstrate notability with references that have a relationship with the subject due to potential COI's. It appears the book itself has been cited a number of times elsewhere academically (linked document metions Snyder being cited elsewhere). So no comment on keep/delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable book, and the newspaper is reliable enough to report that a book exists, published by MIT Press, by a noted person at MIT, and mentioned in scores of reliable source books. I note that publication by a major university press counts a great deal as a rule. As do reviews by Library Journal and Saturday Review (US magazine).
 * The Tech (newspaper) appears to be used as a source about a published book. indicates the book is published by MIT Press which is a reputable publisher of reliable sources.  It has been reviewed in major journals (The Hidden Curriculum "will gain recognition as one of the more cogent 'college unrest' books. Its main contention is simple. There exist, Snyder explains, two curriculums governing the university degree. In addition to mastering the substantive one (say, physics or history), a student must cope with its tactical complement, the academic game whereby his appropriate responses to institutional prejudices will best ensure a high letter-grade transcript.... [A] most provocative thesis." —Saturday Review
 * "...the formal requirements for courses or for success in higher education are often in sharp contrast to what it really takes for a student to complete a course successfully or to be acceptable to peers, faculty, and others.... The central task in studying the 'hidden curriculum' is to learn which patterns of behavior are tribally and/or institutionally sanctioned, and to learn to practice 'selective negligence,' that is, to identify the relevant and simplify the complex. The author calls for a searching dialogue on the disillusionment and gamesmanship that hide behind the specifics of the curriculum."—Library Journal
 * MIT News states: "Snyder was a professor of psychiatry and psychiatrist-in-chief at MIT from 1959 to 1969; dean of Institute relations from 1969 to 1972; and director for the Division of Study and Research in Education from 1973 to 1986. ... Snyder wrote about students and mental health; his book “The Hidden Curriculum,” published by MIT Press in 1972, was on the culture of MIT and how students cope with overload through selective neglect. The book went through various editions."
 * Other sources include, and dozens of other uses in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing published by Knopf NY in 1970 before by MIT? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Knopf was hardcover in 1971, MIT Press then issued an edition in paperback in 1973, possibly with some changes. Both of which more than meet any requirements as being a reliable source publisher.    Collect (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem with Knopf (and after looking into this more I'm voting Keep anyway, it appears its been cited many times elsewhere and plenty of reviews on it) but reliability is not the only criteria for demonstrating notability. MIT Press printing a book by an (at the time) active MIT staff member raises independence questions, which is why I was looking at the earlier publisher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If we had the actual Saturday Review review to look at, that would be a start (I mentioned a BRD lookup would be useful). And Library Journal is known for short, single-paragraph previews of books, of which the actual review is a sentence or two. That you would base a book's notability on a student newspaper (affiliated with the subject), a Library Journal paragraph, and a single, unverified Saturday Review review is unfathomable. Plenty of academic books go unreviewed and are notable—being published by MIT Press is not an automatic indicator. And as I said at the RSN thread—the concept of "hidden curriculum" predates the book The Hidden Curriculum by several years, and the encyclopedia article you posted is mostly a retread (citogenesis) of our article on the former. czar  18:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Argh. Ten seconds to find it. "Education in America New Books by John Calam;  Textbooks and the American Indian, by Jeannette Henry; The Saturday Review, February 20, 1971," To be exact, page  76.  24 lines.  Major review. Please next time you say something is "unverified" look the review up.  I trust you will withdraw the AfD now. Collect (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it have been so hard to link it? And it surely takes more than ten seconds to find. No need to be hostile. I'm not withdrawing the AfD. Two short paragraphs are no basis for keeping an article. czar  21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a serious, scholarly book by someone with standing to write one. And the article exists now. Why throw it away? There's no reason. If you search Google Books, you'll find a plethora of references to this book. So it seems to have some modicum of significance. Other people who wrote serious scholarly books and articles appear to have read this book, or at least be cognizant of what's in it. It's part of the intelligentsia-sphere, or was in its day, it appears. So why do want to say our readers searching on this topic "Well, yes, it's a serious and scholarly book with at least some minor significance. And we had an article on it. But we erased it." How does that help our readers? Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is almost entirely unsourced, and the only sources are to a student newspaper on issues unrelated to the book's content and era. We delete articles on books without reviews for far less. You're overstating its impact. If the book had a noted impact, which in your plethora of sources say so? There are plenty of other sites that can host this content. The argument that the content exists and that it looks interesting are both arguments to avoid. We use reliable sources alone to note the impact of a topic. czar  20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And a bunch of other sources have been shown here. Notability in spades doubled and redoubled.   Time to drop the proverbial stick. Collect (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm counting one source—the Saturday Review. LJ has not been counted as a "source" at AfD in the past, and the student paper MIT-affiliated source doesn't count either. If you made a strong case, I'd have no argument but you've quite literally linked nothing else that I haven't addressed. Take the two paragraphs you're using as sources and what kind of article would we even be able to write? czar  21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well but searching on the string "The Hidden Curriculum Snyder" in Google Books (not regular Google -- Google Books searches into books only) gives me the following results -- this is without actually clicking into the links which I can't be bothered to do, but just to give a high overview, this is what the Google Books result says, just showing them in order exactly as they come up in the search results.
 * "...in an elementary school context, a more conceptually focused work is Snyder's 1971 tome The Hidden Curriculum" in book titled The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education.
 * "In his book, The Hidden Curriculum, (New York, 1971), Benson R. Snyder described the results of research among..." in a "book" which I guess is bound volume of a journal called ThirdWay.
 * "Snyder (1970) argued that the hidden curriculum was, in part..." in a book titled Journey to the Ph.D.: How to Navigate the Process as African Americans
 * Life in Classrooms does not reference Snyder; it is only on the list because it uses the term "hidden curriculum" a lot.
 * "...by the sociologist Phillip Jackson (1968) and developed by Benson Snyder (1973) [sic]' in his book The Hidden Curriculum" in a book titled New Horizons in Multicultural Counselling which I would guess is a textbook.
 * "The term hidden curriculum has been used in two quite different ways in curriculum studies. The more common and ... A second usage of hidden curriculum appeared in 1970 in Benson R. Snyder's Hidden Curriculum. Where Jackson had..." in a book titled Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies.
 * "Benson Snyder's The Hidden Curriculum (1970) considers the 'dissonance' between student and university values..." in a book titled Social Inclusion and Higher Education.
 * "The term "hidden curriculum" has circulated with great intuitive appeal among educators for the past 50 years ... Snyder's (1970) classic book first discussed the hidden curriculum in higher education" in a book titled Distance Education and Distributed Learning.
 * "This term [hidden curriculum] was also used by Benson Snyder, who conducted research at MIT and Wellesley College in the area and presented..." in a book titled Encyclopedia of Distance Education
 * That's the first page of results. There are dozens more pages of results, yielding a plethora of similar results (according to my quick scan). These examples are passing mentions (I expect some Google Books results will yield more in-depth material, though). But they are sufficient to show that the book is part of an ecosystem of thought on matters of curriculum analysis and design (an important and scholarly subject!). We do not grow as a project by throwing away articles on important books. In response to my question "Why throw it away?" the reply was "The article is almost entirely unsourced". That is very poor argument for deletion. It is a good argument for adding a Refimprove template to the top of the article -- but not more than that. And the refs are certainly out there, as the Google Books results shows. It's just a matter of adding them in. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the Google Books listings in depth before the AfD and did bother to read the actual citations—which ones are not throwaway/cursory mentions? Because being cited is not enough to make a work notable. Plenty of books and academic papers are cited just as much (more, really) without their own articles. Our criteria is significant coverage—having enough coverage with enough depth such that someone could write a full article on the subject without veering into original research. I didn't want to, but if you remove the unsourced stuff in this article (the stuff that fails basic WP:V), you would be left with plot summary. I've already recapped our in-depth sources above. No AfD regular would call single paragraphs from Saturday Review and LJ significant coverage. czar  14:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the first hit in Google Books, the one I listed as "...in an elementary school context, a more conceptually focused work is Snyder's 1971 tome The Hidden Curriculum" in book titled The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education, the actual entry is "Although there are frequent references within the hidden curriculum literature to Phillip Johnson's 1968 Life in Classrooms, which does reference the concept within a broader discussion of student socialization within an elementary school context, a more conceptually focused work is Snyder's 1971 tome The Hidden Curriculum. Snyder, a physician and psychotherapist, compared student life at Wellsley College and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He focused on the space between a school's formal expectations and real requirements versus what was 'actually expected of students'. As a psychiatrist, Snyder was interested in the effects of context on students, what he called the 'emotional and social surround of the formal curriculum'. He found that the difference between the expected and its real requirements produced considerable dissonance among the students and resulted in cynicism, scorn, and hypocrisy within both student bodies. Snyder also found students engaged in a great deal of gamesmanship as they worked to figure out what the faculty really wanted, and the most successful students were the best at navigating this gap. He identified a covert student subculture in both of these learning environments and, in an important and often underappreciated distinction, he found that minority students had more difficulty in these turbulent waters."


 * This is not a cursory or throwaway reference, colleague. And that's just the first entry; other entries also engage on the subject to more than a cursory level. So your "I reviewed the Google Books listings in depth" appears to be lacking in diligence.


 * Beyond that, a couple points: first, a large number of citations of the work in other scholarly works, even those that are short and cursory, demonstrates that the work is notable part of the body of thought, on the reading list and part of the intellectual background, of persons engaged in examining this aspect of of the human condition. Second, its a scholarly work. Granted, as matter of fact we tend to focus more on Pokemon characters, minor figures in obscure comic books, D-list rock bands, and so forth, this is not intended to be our main focus; we are not People magazine, at least not entirely and in original design. Scholarly works on the borderline should receive some respect -- not that this book is on or even close to being on the borderline.


 * At this point, I think that you should consider backing off. Bringing an article up for discussion at AfD is fine, but the article has now been demonstrated to be OK. Let it go. A truly dogged determination to erase articles on notable scholarly works would probably not be helpful to the project. Herostratus (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a basic summary of the book—same as the other "reviews". Look at its context and weight—it's only discussed as relevant to the concept of hidden curriculum, not as such a standalone concept that must be addressed in depth on its own (granted, we don't have the sources to cover it in depth). At best that source suggests that the book should be discussed within the context of the "hidden curriculum" article. I don't see how Pokémon characters are relevant at all to this discussion, but I'll note that I've personally deleted and redirected a great many such articles (on that topic) with far more "coverage" if the above is what passes for significant coverage with this audience. But that's the double standard of AfD. Unless you have more sources, I have nothing more to add  czar  20:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you've "personally deleted and redirected a great many such articles (on that topic) with far more coverage", then you're being objectively destructive to the Wikipedia project and you need to stop doing that. Your personal standards of notability are highly idiosyncratic and frankly worrisome. They certainly go against our established standards, worked out over many years as a community, such as WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.


 * This is frankly troublesome and, unless you are just posturing, there is possibly damage to be undone, which is outside the scope of this discussion; I'll contacted you on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF—nothing in that sentence implied rogue/wanton/out-of-policy deletion... I think we've heard enough from both of us—let's let others weigh in on the sources. czar  01:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * weak keep. I think it is a notable book, even perhaps a significantly influential book. (tho I will need to check for actual references--our usual sources don't do well for books published in 1970)) There are 605 holdings on Worldcat, which is pretty good for a book about higher education.  There is however a severe problem with the article, and I have commented differently on other articles of this nature and said in effect:  "delete--violation of NOT PLOT" ("plot" being the nearest equivalent to "over-detailed summary of non-fiction book" and "in-universe" the equivalent, of "assuming the  viewpoint of the book")
 * I frankly do not know what to do with articles of this nature. It is very difficult to abridge such an article without actually having recently read the book, and the alternative if we removed content would be a fairly useless stub. Nonetheless, this article is more easily fixable than most, because the case studies can simply be removed, as well as the unsupported judgements and the non-encyclopedic rhetoric.  Czar is of course right in principle about the use of student newspapers for notability of their own faculty's books, though in this case  the book is also about MIT & what a MIT student newspaper says might be quite relevant.  But I'm not sure I agree about saying that detailed reviews show notability of the concept, not of the book--it is very difficult to separate the two. A discussion or review of a book must say what the book is about, or it's a mere catalog entry.    I am   also concerned about not having two duplicative articles, but in this case our article Hidden curriculum,  discuss it from what seems a very different & broader aspect--tho it's hard to actually tell, because of the intensity of educational jargon.
 * I am also concerned about the style of this article: Looking at the edit history, I have a feeling it was originally a term paper.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per WP:TNT. It's an unencyclopedic combination of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:PLOT, full of what smells like WP:OR. Its referencing is simply unacceptable. I have added multiple CN tags. While I concede the subject may be notable, this article is a disaster on wheels. Blow it up and start over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete primarily per Ad Orientem - this article would have to be completely rewritten to be well-sourced, NPOV, and free of WP:OR.  I am surprised by the lack of independent reliable sources discussing the book itself.   The student newspaper may be reliable but it is too local to really count toward N.  Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest the meat cleaver now has worked - the notability of the author and work is clear, and the extensive commentary and précis deleted. Collect (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there has been an improvement but this is still almost completely unreferenced. That's not acceptable. And I am not sold on notability although I am inclined to give it a pass if that were the only issue. Absent citations, I am thinking this should be no more than a three sentence stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also added two refs. Including the Saturday Review laudatory review.   As this work is cited in literally hundreds of places, a "three sentence stub" is ludicrous.   Collect (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then there should be no problem adding the appropriate references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For usage, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22hidden+curriculum%22+snyder&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10.


 * First entry shows 921 cites of this book. Most books which get cited 921 times are actually notable, indeed.


 * Do you really want me to add a few dozen or so? IU would gladly oblige at this point. Collect (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is still a lack of significant discussion about the book by independent, reliable sources that would allow us to actually craft encyclopedic content about the book. Citations of the book are not necessarily discussions about the book; some of them may discuss it in detail, and those would be useful. at this point we have no evidence of that.   Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we stop the silly "citation needed" game as the reviews and other uses clearly establish what the thesis is. I added two scholarly journals, and will gladly add as many as are need to show the silliness of "cn" for every sentence. These cites, by the way, deal with the content of the book, so the cavils now are getting absurd.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Jytdog said. Beyond which I don't care about the cite count. All claims of fact, excepting those that are completely uncontroversial, MUST have a citation from an independent reliable source. If you can do that with five or six great. If you need a hundred, I think we may have a problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should as assiduously note that most of the Hidden curriculum article is quire uncited, and direct your attention to those claims as well. Collect (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving to Weak Keep I believe the NPOV issue has been resolved and the WP:V and OR are now at an acceptable minimum. The lack of in depth coverage is not helpful. However there are enough references in other works to it that I think it rings (very softly) the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that you deleted material which was having a cite added -- a notable presentation to a conference should quite suffice. Collect (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment For showing the influence of a book, a high number of citations  especially in noteworthy serious sources is at least as important as in-depth references. One way for something to become significant is for it to be cited very widely; another is to show that it made enough of an impact to be discussed in detail.  DGG' ( talk ) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I'm neutral on the outcome (haven't heard of the book or even read the article) but, as was pointed out on RSN, the MIT newspaper's reliability is immaterial when it comes to establishing notability -- it is not an independent source, as the book is by the then-dean of the school at which the newspaper is published. The closer should take this into account when reviewing the various "keep" !votes that missed this point. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A search in Google scholar gives 928 citations to the book which continues to be cited after 45 years. It is the defining work for the concept of a "hidden curriculum" in higher education, and is cited on works well outside of higher education. Citations refer to it as a classic text. There are recent books and articles discussing the book and the research behind it. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reporting back some library research: I looked up the book in Book Review Digest and Book Review Index—the two main book review indices of the period—which I'd consider to be foremost indicator of a book's reception:
 * Saturday Review – brief (130w)
 * Library Journal and CHOICE – both publications for brief book summaries for library purchasing, less than 130w, and have not been used for book notability in the past
 * Barring some stunning revelation from what I expect to be low-quality education history sources, we continue to have no content to separate the notability of this topic from the general topic of "hidden curriculum". If writings on the book have encyclopedic import, it would only be in the context the history of sociological writings on the concept of hidden curriculum, not the book as its own subject. From someone with an actual background in history of education, I'm surprised to see the claims of importance above. We would need some extraordinary claim of the book's legacy in order to justify an article, and I have seen not a single citation that marks this 1970 book as popularizing the concept, term, or legacy of hidden curriculum (I could name several more notable works for that, and each would have at least a dozen reviews in reputable sources because, well, that is the measure of noted impact). Our only marker is the book's collection in WorldCat libraries, and that has not been enough for independent notability on its own in AfDs past. With no depth of coverage or WP:NBOOKS policy-backed argument and with the research I did before and during this AfD, I really don't see the case. But with BRD/BRI as the final word, that's the last I'll add to this discussion Eye close font awesome.svg czar  20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have disagreed (and continue to vigorously disagree) with User:Czar on other issues, but on this one, it is clear that User:Czar's interpretation of WP policy is sound and reasonable.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment... Sheesh. There seems to be a group of editors who don't seem to understand -- or maybe they just don't care for -- WP:NBOOK, which is supposed to be our book notability guideline.


 * Let's take a look together at what WP:NBOOK says: the book is assumed (not proven, but assumed) to be notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews."


 * "Has been the subject of... non-trivial published works" is further explained thus:'''"The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment... 'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.... Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur...."


 * Is the passage I quoted above (" Snyder, a physician and psychotherapist, compared student life at Wellsley College and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He focused on the space between a school's formal expectations and real requirements versus what was 'actually expected of students'. As a psychiatrist, Snyder was interested in the effects of context on students, what he called the 'emotional and social surround of the formal curriculum'. He found that the difference between the expected and its real requirements produced considerable dissonance among the students and resulted in cynicism, scorn, and hypocrisy within both student bodies. Snyder also found students engaged in a great deal of gamesmanship as they worked to figure out what the faculty really wanted, and the most successful students were the best at navigating this gap. He identified a covert student subculture in both of these learning environments and, in an important and often underappreciated distinction, he found that minority students had more difficulty in these turbulent waters.") a "mere mention of the book"? Is it just a "price listing"? or the functional equivalent of just a price listing or other insubstantial mention? Or perhaps the book The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education (published by Dartmouth Press) is functionally equivalent to a "personal website, bulletin board, or Usenet post"? Or is it not part of set of "two or more" works substantially addressing the work in question?


 * That some editors are answering "Yes" to these questions, in defiance of the plain English, is what's troubling. We are not even speaking the same language and this is very annoying and not functional. Editors are expected to work and argue against guidelines they don't like but respect them until they are changed. I do. Herostratus (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Herostratus. Clearly passes NBOOK. Sources are clearly more than adequate for a 1970 publication date, which is in something of a pre-internet "dead zone" -- many print sources not yet digitized and thus it is difficult to recreate some of the "buzz" that surrounded a work in its time.  Being covered by the Saturday Review was notable, looks like two peer-reviewed journals, and an analysis in a scholarly work. Just because you've never heard of it does not mean it was not notable in its time.  Worldcat shows it has at least two published editions, and rooting around with the various editions, it appears to be kept in at least 600 libraries.   Montanabw (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep under WP:NBOOK; arguments for a deletion have not been convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2016 (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.