Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The federal union


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The federal union

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability, no citations, no indication that it passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of significance, much less notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is/was notable. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, WorldCat lists almost 1000 libraries holding this book, so there might be something in it. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. nominated this an hour after it was created and has successfully scared off the new editor who created it, so it's not particularly surprising that it isn't well referenced. But it appears to be a notable entry-level review/textbook on US history: per  it is held by many libraries, was widely used enough to have a student's companion written to it is frequently cited and numerous re-editions (the latest twenty years after it's original publication and coauthored by George E. Mowry). We don't have an article on its author John D. Hicks, but he appears to by highly notable ("one of the most influential historians of our day"). Did the nominator and delete !voters do their homework? Joe Roe (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a famous textbook -- one that I personally assigned for a number of years. It was often mentioned at history convention panels on how to teach college history. It introduced new techniques esp in terms of illustrations & maps.  Over the decades it's where hundreds of thousands of Americans (several million I think) learned history. (Used copies were sold and resold over and over.)  I still have and use a copy. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I would expect an undergraduate textbook, even if now superseded to be notable. I note that the form in which not is nominated had been changed to a correctly capitalised one.  Whether the redirect remains useful, I am not sure, but redirects are cheap.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that this looks like a notable textbook. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:28, 26 September 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.