Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Contract with the Earth

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 per WP:SNOW. Lone delete vote provided no rationale. --JForget 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Contract with the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable book Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep. Appears to be non-notable, other than written by a notable person. Amazon gives it a sales rank of 23,127. [1] —BradV 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to keep as additional sources have been provided and improvements made to the article. —BradV 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article in bad shape, but notable book. Has been discussed (for about 8 minutes, apparently) on NPR[2] and on Salon.com[3], and is discussed substantially in the New York Times[4]. Fram (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep significant RS coverage. Article is a mess but notability is pretty clear. No longer a mess, still notable. Is today 'let's take everything to AfD Day?' TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The book was co-written by a major American politician for heaven's sake. Needs lots of clean-up, no argument there. Works by very notable people are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I made it a serviceable book stub. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There's also The Washington Post [5] and MSNBC [6]. I think it meets criteria #1 and (possibly) 5 at WP:Notability (books). Ha! (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to strong keep, after working on the article and reading up on it I'm now very sure it meets the criteria. Ha! (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Could we snowball this so people can spend time amplifying the article instead of defending its existence? JamesMLane t c 04:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Amplified. I've added references, links, a synopsis, cover art and infobox stuff. Ha! (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Google search shows 52,000 ghits [7]. Enough sources can be found easily to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.