Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Flowers Worth Knowing


 * 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. Early close as keep per WP:SNOW ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wild Flowers Worth Knowing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete per Notability (books) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"The vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature."
 * Keep. I've buffed the article up a bit and included a few more references. There are several more contemporary reviews that I don't have access to at the moment, including one in the Springfield Republican newspaper. Google searches don't turn up everything, especially when dealing with older books. Passes notability criteria. Rkitko (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Humorously, I also found a New York Times review under the heading "Notable Books in Brief Review.") Rkitko (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the excellent expansion by Rkitko. There are other sources not yet in the article. Passes WP:N. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, excellent work also from 202.124.74.156. The basic research that would have established notability is part of the due diligence that the nominator ought to have done first. This wonderful old book should not have been considered for deletion. To quote from Notability (books):
 * Alan Liefting is prolific in his proposals for deletions; bald deletion proposals from him about old books warrant being cleared out, pending more thorough consideration by him. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2012 (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.