Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orientalism (book)

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 of the debate was keep. HappyCamper 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orientalism (book)

Fixing mis-formatted AfD nomination only. --Metropolitan90 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination. The article is exceptionally content-free. It solely consists of a (the?) list of chapter and subchapter headings, in addition to quotes from the work in the introductory paras. D.valued 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - How can a 2000-word article be "exceptionally content-free"? It is anything but the case that "it consists of a (the?) list of chapter and subchapter headings, in addition to quotes from the work in the introductory paras." "D.valued must have failed to scroll down... Ah well, errare est humanum. Mark K. Jensen 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Orientalism is a well-known book by a prominent author, regardless of my own views about that author. However, the entire "detailed synopsis" is unencyclopedic -- it's basically a summary of each page or group of a few pages of the book -- and should not be kept in this article. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• KeepKeep as is, a highly influential text in post-colonialism. However, Saad is particularly hard to digest and while the summary of the text is open to revision and argument it is a powerful start to understanding Saad's intentions.--Porturology 07:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This currently looks like just a dump of someone's notes from the book, but could potentially be turned into a decent article by someone who was knowledgeable enough about the text to turn them into coherent paragraphs. But in the end it is actually a better article on the book than most of our articles on books, which tell you absolutely nothing about the contents. Not really an encyclopedia article yet, but a start. And yes, the book is notable enough. --Fastfission 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is encyclopedic. It's an influential work in scholarly circles. Durova 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Fastfission. Stifle 00:45, 24 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.