Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Cauldron (essay)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Magic Cauldron (essay)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This essay itself is not enough notable. It may just me discussed/mentioned in the article about the book that contains it. damiens.rf 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Maybe someone "in the know" can comment on the importance of this piece, but I can't find anything that makes me think this is a notable essay. Bali88 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm finding mention of it in a lot of academic textbooks and the like, either as a reference or just outright quoted. I've found two academic texts that detail it in length and I'm not done looking yet. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This book lists it as a reference in relation to medicine, and it's also listed here, here, and had an article in InformationWeek as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not in the know, but I'm finding it in multiple, multiple academic textbooks. A look for sources in my school's JSTOR finds a few more sources as well. I've added them to the article. I'd have argued for an article about the book as a whole, but multiple sources cite this essay specifically as something that's a pretty good example of what Raymond was trying to say. It does need some TLC from someone who is more savvy with this, but so far I'm finding enough evidence to show that this is fairly notable. It's used relatively frequently in sources, so I'm trying to be more selective with what I bring up, but it does seem to have coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scholar has this cited 185 times as well. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked some people from the computer WP to help take a look at the page and clean it up some, as well as look for more sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY, as it now looks to be notable, due to the addition of found sources. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as sources found and added to the article demonstrate topic notability through multiple reliable sources. Nice work, Tokyogirl79! --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2014 (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.