Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Evocation of Kierkegaard

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Doc (?) 16:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Evocation of Kierkegaard

The book's author, David Cain, is already on AfD as non notable. His books seems similarly unnoteworthy - can't find it on Amazon, and searching Google for the ISBN returns only two hits - the review page linked from this article, and one other (a Danish online bookstore which doesn't have the book in stock and has no cover image for it. Could be vanity. Delete CLW 15:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. I'm not sure what constitutes notability for a book. Barnes & Noble carries it as Evocation of Kierkegaard (without the An). I believe it is quite possible for a book to achieve sufficient notability for Wikipedia, even though its author does not. I am not familiar with generally accepted Wikipedia policy on this, though. Ashenai 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Book itself appears to be nn and information is already in David Cain (whom I think should be kept). Dlyons493 16:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--DrBat 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough I suppose, my standards are shiftingggg. gren グレン 01:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, non-vanity book Kappa 05:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, possible vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with David Cain (professor). Alf ^melmac 10:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa.--Nicodemus75 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with David Cain (professor). Book itself is non-notable and the title of the article is too generic and potentially misleading for a useful redirect. Dystopos 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:01, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.