Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Blue Book

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Blue Book[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redir to Little Blue Book. Appears to lack notability for its own article -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Big Blue Books were significant for much the same reason as the sister Little Blue Books: The Big Blue Book series sold a great many copies, and many of its works were originals by “notable” authors, such as Joseph McCabe, Bertrand Russell (An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, Big Blue Book B-345), and sexologist D. O. Cauldwell. The present article is a stub, and hence lacks a great deal of what one might ultimately want in an article. —SlamDiego_←T 06:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just looking at the first few of these 313 Google Books hits finds this and this. I would urge the nominator to take the few seconds needed to follow WP:BEFORE in the future to avoid wasting everyone else's time in discussing articles on such clearly notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of google hits does not determine notability for books. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant publisher's series. Gcounts are usually meaningless, but this is not true of GBooks, GScholar or GNews, because weach of them are selections, extracted in a meaningful way. They still take interpretation and examination, but its not like GCounts. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 3 February 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.