Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language Police

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 redirect to Diane Ravitch. Mgm|^(talk) 14:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Language Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced for nearly two and a half years; questionable notability. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems there are sources to be had to establish notability [1]  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per Bejnar.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the unquestionable notability shown by [2][3][4][5] and loads more sources available from a few seconds with Google. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Diane Ravitch, where the book is already fully covered. The concept behind the book, that there is a serious problem with textbook publishers in the United States bowing to various pressure groups, is notable and that is likely why there were book review articles published in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor (among others). However, while that does meet the notability of books threshold that does not mean that the book should have its own article. The guidelines go on to say, if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book. A simple redirect will suffice, since not much more can be said about the book than what is already in the Diane Ravitch article, except for the WP:OR of abstracting examples from the book that are particularly egregious. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Bejnar. Not enough content for a stand-alone article when a parent is available. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not redirect author - if anything, it should redirect to the dab page, if redirected. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning? --Bejnar (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Bejnar. The book may be notable, but the content describing it that already exists in the author's article is superior to the content in this article. If it is expanded in the author's article to the point where it becomes problematically large, it can then be rolled out into a separate article. It has not yet met that threshold. JulesH (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2009 (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.