Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever[edit]
- Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever (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)
Almost no content iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sure it's a stub, but a cursory Google search reveals a lot of information. The book is clearly notable. I have added content and references to the article so please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Additional comment: I see that this was nominated for deletion, as having "almost no content", only half an hour after the article was created, and while the creator was clearly still working on it (e.g. creating an infobox). Surely we should give people a little time to establish content, before complaining about lack of content!--MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response: Please use the {{under construction}} tag.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? It says "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content."
- Personally, I often start an article small, and add information as I research it. Wikipedia seems to accept this approach, see Wikipedia:stub. "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." The fact that an article is a stub, or is very short, is not one of the reasons for deletion.
- BTW I am not the author of the article, and I know nothing about this book except what I researched - never heard of it before today. I am just a person who likes to occasionally "rescue" an article from deletion, when I think the subject has merit.--MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- In response: Please use the {{under construction}} tag.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: I see that this was nominated for deletion, as having "almost no content", only half an hour after the article was created, and while the creator was clearly still working on it (e.g. creating an infobox). Surely we should give people a little time to establish content, before complaining about lack of content!--MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to the two New York Times reviews; that's pretty significant coverage for a new book. ThemFromSpace 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Concur with the above, there are sources that document notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, here we have notability confirmed in so many words: the New York Times put this book on their list of "Notable Books of 2009".[1]
- Keep Added notability claims.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:57, 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.