Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethica thomistica

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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethica thomistica

Ethica thomistica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK, notability not asserted, tagged since Nov. Lea (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The Amazon page indicates that the book in the original edition (now 25 years ago and so outside the Google event horizon) was multiply reviewed in theological and philosophical journals, and that it has been multiply cited by other academic books. The publisher claims it's a classic in the field frequently used as textbook, and while that of course cannot be treated as reliable, it is suggestive -- as is the fact that it came back into print in a revised edition. Taken together, I suspect it meets WP:BK, if marginally. Perhaps someone from the Philosophy wikiproject would be able to shed some light on this matter; I withhold making a recommendation either way pending further information. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Google Scholar says it is cited by 15 online papers/books. скоморохъ 11:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I should have gone there as well. This and GRBerry's result below are enough to make it clearly notable by WP:BK. Valid stub. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Checking Worldcat, it is in a lot of university libraries. In fact, it is in 12 such libraries located within 5 miles from me. Clearly a significant work, and the reviews exist for when someone gets around to improving this stub. GRBerry 03:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 812 libraries in the US-based worldCat is sufficient to show widespread notability. There were undoubtedly reviews, which can be located in standard sources available in most libraries. They should be added. It's carelss making a nomination of material from this period without at least checking GS. DGG (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn; sorry I didn't check more carefully! -- Lea (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2008 (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.