Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Age of Consent (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 was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Age of Consent (book)

Expired prod but the rationale for it was "no indication of why this is a notable book" which I find unconvincing. This might just barely meet WP:BK: references with passing mention to this work are easy to come by (see e.g. [1] [2] [3]) and author does have some notability. Procedural nom. Pascal.Tesson 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT When I prod'd the book, the article on had the name of the book, the author and the name of the person who wrote the forward. To me, that does not indicate notabillity. Even notable authors like Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare wrote non notable things. If an important author wrote a letter to the editor of the community newspaper saying hew would like the town council to improve the street lighting on his street so his kids could play outside on summer nights, that is not notable of an article on its own. All I was saying in my prod was that based on the info provided, I had no idea if this book was as unworthy of our attention as the letter or more worthy of our attention as say Dickens' Bleak House. Now that more info is provided, I see why it is wiki worthy and have no problem with it staying here. Postcard Cathy

• Keep seems (slightly) notable based on e.g. the BBC citation of it. JJL
• Merge with article on author and redirect. -- Hoary 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The articles been expanded and more sources added. Nick mallory 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough reliable sources. --Nricardo 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this was one of those books that educated people claimed knowledge of through book reviews that year. If you didn't you weren't well-read. It was seen as a cultural response to Clinton/Lewinsky. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The major part of this expansion has been via simple regurgitation of a review that anyway appears at amazon.com. I'm underwhelmed. The book appears to be a run-of-the-mill lamentation, deserving no more than a short paragraph within the article on its writer. So my "delete" vote stands. -- Hoary 08:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article cites reviews in the Washington Times and other major reliable sources. It is not an Amazon user review. I would re-read WP:BK and try to make an argument absent your subjective opinion of the book. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 4 June 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.