Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind and Madness in Ancient Greece

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 as this seems notable and acceptable with its current state (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind and Madness in Ancient Greece[edit]

Mind and Madness in Ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep no wp:before. please review notability process before nominating other articles. deletion is not a process for article improvement. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This book meets the first criterion of WP:NBOOK. There are three non-trivial, scholarly reviews that are cited on the article itself: [1][2][3]. NBOOK requires only two independent reviews. --Biblioworm 17:55, 10 October 2015 (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.