Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide to Literary Agents

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 delete. The one "keep" opinion is not based on Wikipedia policy or practice, and does not address the reasons given for deletion. Sandstein 17:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Literary Agents[edit]

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

Unreferenced. News searches do not suggest that sources exist which talk about this topic in-depth, although there are mentions here and there. I do not think that this book meets the general notability guideline. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggesting better the needed notability, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, it's a known book. I very seldom if ever look at these deletion pages and have been told how so many fine pages are removed daily. This is the only page I've looked at (and is for one day!!???). Do some people delight in removing the work of others (I don't mean the nominator here, but in general)? People like me will keep away, and those who count scalps will continue chopping I suppose. This page though, what could you possibly find non-notable, it's a recognized book probably used by thousands of people. Kryn out. Randy Kryn 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to see how it satisfies any of the points raised in WP:BK. The thin content suggests that there just isn't much to say about it either. Anything which could be useful (but I'm not seeing what that would be) might be merged to Writer's Digest. JMWt (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2016 (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.