Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos
- 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. W.marsh 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book, less than 250 google hits for "Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos" -wikipedia. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Only 187 google hits [1] . -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Per this proposed guideline, a book by a notable author is notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Using a guidline is sketchy, but a proposed one? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see what's wrong with using a proposed guideline in an area where no agreed-upon guideline exists. I'm not saying it's a perfect guideline by any means, but it at least represents an attempt at codifying notability for books. The number of times another proposed guideline is thrown about, you'd almost think there was no functional difference between proposed and actual ones. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that there is a difference there. If we say too bad about that guideline, then a thousand articles are all the sudden AFD'd. That's just a scared to set precedence one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't quite follow that argument. Surely the same thing would occur here, where if we say that this particular proposed guideline is only that, a number of other articles on books need to be deleted? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment note that guidelines are mostly designed to reflect the practice of AfD and not to define it. The usual phrasing of that principle is that guidelines are "descriptive, not prescriptive". That being said, I won't argue this point: the proposed guideline is not perfect and has only been around for a few months. That's why it's a proposal, not an accepted guideline. But I still think it does a pretty fair job of outlining the consensus opinion about books that should or should not be kept. I encourage anyone here that supports or objects to the proposal (or parts of it) to voice his concerns since that's the only way to make progress towards a stronger consensus. Pascal.Tesson 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't quite follow that argument. Surely the same thing would occur here, where if we say that this particular proposed guideline is only that, a number of other articles on books need to be deleted? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that there is a difference there. If we say too bad about that guideline, then a thousand articles are all the sudden AFD'd. That's just a scared to set precedence one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see what's wrong with using a proposed guideline in an area where no agreed-upon guideline exists. I'm not saying it's a perfect guideline by any means, but it at least represents an attempt at codifying notability for books. The number of times another proposed guideline is thrown about, you'd almost think there was no functional difference between proposed and actual ones. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Using a guidline is sketchy, but a proposed one? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, any full book Asimov wrote is probably notable enough for inclusion. -Amarkov babble 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Asimov is highly notable as an author and his books are, to a title, notable as well. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Asimov book, prolific and prominent science-fiction author. Article needs, frankly, just about everything though. Robovski 23:58, 11 November 2006 (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.