Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah's Gift

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. --Coredesat 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah's Gift

PROD deleted by anon. IP with no reason given, so I'm nominating for deletion due to being a NN-book DesertSky85451 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep This [1] should be enough to establish the book's notability. The publisher's website does cite some reviews (although by not so important publications) [2]. The book has been translated at least in French. I do believe it meets WP:BK.Pascal.Tesson 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Amazon (UK) holds 21 customers' reviews on this title, the two lowest rated at four-stars; As kept, no harm. Ricksy 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Pascal.Tesson. I was all ready to say "delete", but I agree that a translation and a hospital endorsement work well for its notability. EVula 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The hospital endorsement is by just one hospital in Indiana, not on the level of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or the Children's Miracle Network, and the quotations were the kind that are solicited by the publisher for the book cover and publicity. But I'm not so much concerned with the suitability of the topic as I am with the tone and direction of the article. In the article's history it has gone from being (1) a simple and blatant book recommendation written in the first person, to (2) a book review, to (3) a medium for a heartfelt message directly from the author of the book, and (4) back to a book review. In none of these incarnations do I see the makings of an encyclopedic article, and I see no one prepared to make this into an encyclopedic article.OfficeGirl 22:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm about to have dinner, but when I get back, I'll give the article a crack to see if I can't clean it up some. EVula 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • KEEP (enthusiastically) I can't believe my eyes. Is this the same article? Wow, what a fantastic difference! That's great work! Three cheers for EVula!OfficeGirl 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've overhauled the article completely.[3] Boy, nothing more fun than researching a book about a little girl dying of cancer... :-( EVula 05:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Pascal.Tesson above. Smeelgova 05:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep per EVula's updates. --Marriedtofilm 15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on EVula's gift, er, improvements. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Does this mean I have to get a pair of shoes like that? Ugh... EVula 03:52, 24 October 2006 (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.