Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War comes to willy freeman


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

War comes to willy freeman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Written like a 5 year olds book report. yutsi (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable, 410000 google hits, if it's not kept it should be redirected to James Lincoln Collier.-- Pontificalibus  (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless its expanded improved soon. RadManCF (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think articles should be deleted if they are of insufficient length? --[[User:Pontificalibus|

Pontificalibus ]] (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the immediate value of the article.RadManCF (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the article is currently written, it presents a few random facts in a couple sentences. I find it odd that none of the facts presented here to support keeping this article are presented in the article itself. Also, see An unfinished house is a real problem and Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the book and the New York Times sources I added don't establish notability? Neither of those essays you mention are relevant as the article is both accurate and readable, and there are no valid grounds for deletion. -- Pontificalibus  (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made those remarks before you added the references. Also, I did not say anything about notability, just that the article was short and poorly written. RadManCF (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 
 * Comment "Written like a 5 year olds book report" is not a valid criteria for deletion. Editting problems are solved through editting, not deletion. With this in mind, a speedy keep might be appropriate, as no rationale has been offered by the nominator. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well-known book from famous prize-winning author.  book. In over 1150 worldCat libraries, multiplee ditions from 1983 through 2002. Articles specifically about the controversy aroused by the book in the NY Times (which called it  a critically acclaimed novel about blacks in the Revolutionary War,   & elsewhere; reviews in Chicago Tribune Washington Post, Milwaukee Journal, etc--right there in the G News search above. The G Scholar & GBook searches right there    show its cited in many articles as an example.   It is fairly rare to actually have these many excellent  independent  secondary sources apart from the reviews for a children's book. Article just needs some expansion.  Another in the many examples of why WP:BEFORE should be required.    DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly notable, many sources available, not valid rationale for deletion offered. Edward321 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (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.