Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Enemy

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn. — ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Enemy

The Last Enemy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This book does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). The article's text is a clear copy vio from [1] and there is not a clean version to revert to. Normally I'd speedy delete but I've previously prodded the article and it was disputed on the grounds that another editor believes that "book is a notable primary historical account of the Battle of Britain", which suggests that the article might be on a notable topic and I don't want to look malicious. Google books [2] has a handful of references from other web pages for this book, including a few positive reviews, but I don't think that these meet criteria 1 at WP:BK and the article makes no claim of notability against the other 4 criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related page because it is on the same book:

Falling Through Space (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and have falling through space redirect to this one. This book was first published in 1942 and was reprinted in 1988 because it was a 'classic' first hand account written by a pilot at the time. A little rewriting deals with the copywrite issue. The Battle of Britain 'might be a notable topic' are you serious? This is a book by a man who fought in the battle, was shot down and severely burned, had major plastic surgery, returned to action and died fighting for his country in 1942. For someone to sit on Wikipedia more than sixty years later and blithely declare something like that 'not notable' is entirely wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Comment I was suggesting that the book wasn't notable (the article is on the book), not the Battle of Britain or it's author. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remember notability is not inherited just because "The Battle of Britain" is notable doesn't necessarily mean a book that is a first hand account is notable. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's included in the Norton Anthology of English Literature, so must be judged to be a significant piece of writing about the event. It's been reprinted several times and in several editions, so it's not just a limited-run book. It was also written by a notable pilot of the era, Richard Hillary - he's even got an article at the Oxford DNB which claims this book as one of his significant achievements. Everything about this suggests that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Bob talk 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Nick mallory's comment has said it all. Bob talk 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Are you kidding? First-hand notable account of an important historical event, reprinted many times. Can the nom suggest a MORE notable account? Sheesh! How is this even listed? Sensiblekid (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for assuming good faith and showing civility. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies everything related to notability that I can think of. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Nick mallory. Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion and general obviousness - perhaps WP:SNOW ? matt91486 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability has been indicated. Doczilla (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OK, it looks like I was wrong and this should be closed per WP:SNOW. However, no-one has added any sources which attest to the book's notability yet. I'm pretty widely read on WW2, but I've never heard of this book and wasn't able to find any reliable sources about it being particularly notable... --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There has been a few comments saying that the article satisfies everything related to notability but as nom has indicated it is clearly missing verifiable sources, also just because a book is reprinted many times doesn't make it notable I could easily find a school text book, a dictionary or a just a novel that has been reprinted many times. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine there are some 'notable' examples of school text books too - I assume you're playing devil's advocate here? Just doing a quick web search should answer your question. As I said when I removed the prod, the book is quoted in many places as being a definitive primary record of not just the Battle, but also of the era, although they generally just say how notable it is as a book, rather than actually say a lot about it, i.e. BBC, Battle of Britain.net, Sheffield University, Time magazine. Sebastian Faulks has written about it in his book Three Short Lives. Also, interestingly, it seems there was a television film of the book made in 1956. There are also plenty of other things that can be found on subscription services. Some of these should probably be added to the article as well, although they generally just let the text speak for itself. Bob talk 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was playing a bit of devil's advocate that was the reason why I only had all my things as Comments and not Delete, great job on the article by the way. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just did a search of some newspapers The Times came up with [3], [4], [5], the Telegraph came up with [6] etc, all seeming to suggest this is pretty important. Bob talk 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford University Journal [7], New Statesman [8], The Guardian [9], Channel 4 [10]. How many more verifiable sources do you need? Bob talk 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Are all those references now in the article? Nomination withdrawn --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:12, 8 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.