Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plug-In Drug


 * 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) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Plug-In Drug

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

Unreferenced summary, original research and non-npov. Nothing in stub suggests topic is notable, and quick Google search doesn't suggest it's been subject of or part of third-party commentary/work. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. How quick was that Google search?  Amazon counts that 60 books cite this book.  Quoted in this 2003 MIT Press Sourcebook on the Internet and the Family.  Google Scholar finds about 2,100 hits (not all relate to this book, but still...). Power.corrupts (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear notability over a long period of decades. Just add some of the references. DGG (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep extremely notable book that as power has noted is cited by a large amount of other books and has a fairly substantial google scholar count. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the most well-known books about television and its effects on children. I have read it several times and it's definitely among the top books that must be read if you pursue broadcasting or social work as a career.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This is a very well known and influential book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator must have blinked when doing that quick Google search. Had reviews in the New York Times and the Washington Post  when it first came out and has had continuing press coverage since . Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added a few refs, a couple of which describes the book as a 'landmark study'. I note also that the book is in its 11th edition and is cited widely up to the current day. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 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.