Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking Open the Head

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Open the Head[edit]

Daniel Pinchbeck already has a personal page in which this tiny stub could be included. I'm not sure why it's grouped in the categories it's in, as it's not an academic book nor is it a religious text. Speedy deletion? Billycuts 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep books that are not from vanity presses. Stubs are a-okay, no need to merge it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not Amazon nor Books in Print. Library catalogs can be found elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous. If this were strictly raw data about the book, you might have a point, but it isn't-- if you honestly think that books published by mainstream publishers shouldn't have articles, then I'm afraid that you have some seriously warped ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia.--SB | T 07:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was there an honest argument buried in that sputtering? But to address one of your strawman statements ("...if you honestly think that books published by mainstream publishers shouldn't have articles..."), try arguing against something I actually said. Hint 1: leaving out adjectives in order to warp someone else's actual meaning? Not nice. Hint 2: what's missing from the noun "books"?
I'm afraid that you have some seriously warped ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say the same -- with actual justification -- for anyone who confuses an encyclopedia with Everything2. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try being civil, Calton. As for reading your rationale, it seems you have none for deletion, simply that we're "not Amazon" or a library catalog. Great, but that doesn't address the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. This is hardly a "tiny stub", it's a nice informative paragraph about a clearly real book. There's no reason to merge, delete, redirect, or do anything of the sort to this article. Is it perfect? Nope, hardly. But that is absolutely not a reason to delete this article. --SB | T 07:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mobile phone, my desk calendar, or my MUJI compact electric desk fan in front of me are all clearly real, but they're not getting articles, are they? --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Info on the book can be merged into the author article. Then leave a redirect from Breaking Open the Head to Daniel Pinchbeck. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not in a million years be deleted, let alone (choke!) speedied. There's an argument for merging to Daniel Pinchbeck, and I think that would be a good result. Regardless, AfD is not required for keeping, merging, or redirecting. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:23, 17 June 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.