- 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Limitations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I've added some references. A simple search clearly shows the notability of the book. The nominator should practice some WP:BEFORE #9. SilverserenC 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepSadads (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2010 (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.