Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright in Historical Perspective

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright in Historical Perspective

Copyright in Historical Perspective (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No indicaiton this book is notable; no independent sources, no critical review. A directory entry, basically. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This book is a classic (the article does say that this scholarly book is still in print almost four decades into its existence). It's the key work by one of the most eminent American copyright scholars. You will find plenty of articles and books citing this work (plus some of our own articles), and Lawrence Lessig mentioned the book very favorably several times. There is at least one review for Copyright in Historical Perspective (Book Reviews : Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in historical perspective, de Meij, International Communication Gazette.1970; 16:241), but I don't have access to it. Rl 06:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. We have guidelines for articles on published works, and this does not appear to satisfy the criteria laid out there. Eusebeus 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment What would those criteria be? I am honestly curious. (and I did read the guidelines) Rl 07:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't establish notibility as per Wikipedia:Notability_(books)--Dacium 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Can I ask you, too, to mention some of the criteria that you believe are not met even though they should be? Rl 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as nobody can specify how it violates the Notability guideline. Seems notable to me. Malc82 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to pass notability. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Apparently an important work in its niche. JulesH 23:03, 3 May 2007 (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.