Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Meaning of Liff


 * 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. No unique  names  17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Meaning of Liff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Originally a disputed prod, no longer unsourced, but one source. I am having difficulty finding evidence of notability. No unique  names  05:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a well-known book. There was even a Finnish version of it called Elimäen tarkoitus. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lukewarm Keep: The original seems to be out of print, but Douglas Adams is very much a noteworthy author. Apparently a posthumous sequel is due next year. Faustus37 (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not often that I've actually heard of something here, that generally is a good sign it's notable. Douglas Adams is a very noteworthy author as Faustus suggests - the books are mentioned in his obit. John Lloyd is also very well known as the creator of QI. The books are published internationally, translated into other languages and include reviews from reliable sources 20 years after their first publication for example. I'm surprised that it could be considered non-notable. Worm TT( talk ) 11:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was another source, "Don't Panic", already cited in the text, which I've put in a &lt;ref&gt; tag.  Looking at my copy of it it indicates it was the source of widespread comment in the press at the time, and mentions a Times column by Miles Kington we could also use (I'd do that myself but I don't currently have a library card). Morwen - Talk 12:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And now I've added a third source, Hitchhiker, Adams' biography, which adds some new details in a chapter or so on the book. Morwen - Talk 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject of this 10-year old wikipedia article is notable.  The book itself has a rather surprising number of mentions even today in the press, evidence of its longstanding position as part of the body of knowledge we really must have coverage of.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, plentiful sources per WP:BEFORE, nom to read it please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read it. In fact, I did find lots of GOOGLEHITS.  Unfortunately, the ones I found were not acceptable per RS.  Consider reading AGF.  -- No  unique  names  17:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given above sources, I withdraw the nomination.
 * 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.