Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lives of Animals


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, according to WP:SNOW. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Lives of Animals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the sources are primary sources, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep - The article could use some work and additional sources, but any book written by a Nobel Prize winner is worthy of inclusion here.  Ormr2014 | Talk
 * I disagree, notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that combined with over 300k search results seems to warrant a good degree of notability.  Ormr2014 | Talk
 * Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) and saying that there are a lot of hits in a Google search (WP:GHITS) is not an argument for notability either. It's generally pretty hard to argue that someone is notable enough that any of their works would be notable by association. That part of WP:NBOOK was written with the idea that it'd be applied to people like Shakespeare and Poe. Trying to apply that to anyone from modern day is pretty difficult- even Stephen King books don't fall within that part of the guideline and he's probably one of the best known horror authors that ever existed. As far as Ghits go, the problem with that is that someone can have a lot of hits, yet the hits will bring back nothing of value. You'll see this a lot with stuff like websites and businesses where people go out and spam as many outlets as possible in order to have a larger amount of hits. In the same vein, some search terms will bring up a lot of false hits. (This isn't even taking into consideration that different search methods can bring up dramatically different amounts of results.) I'd be surprised if there aren't enough sources out there for this book, but we can't judge notability based on the amount of hits that come back in a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Although if the article is kept then this will absolutely need to be cleaned up to take out all of the original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources attesting notability exist:, . Article needs work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of sources. I've added a few. Sarah (SV) (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like this was a bad nomination by me. I'm withdrawing the nomination and closing it myself, according to WP:SNOW. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (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.