Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior Person's Book of Words (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Person's Book of Words[edit]

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

Re-nominating because the subject fails WP:NBOOK. Most of the prior arguments to keep were along the lines of "real book" and "well known", though I was unable to find references to it on Google News or meaningful content in a regular Google search (i.e. a few refs in blogs, nothing from a newspaper, magazine, etc. in the first 5 pages of results). Note that the prior debate in 2005 was a full year before WP:N and WP:NBOOK were created. The book does exist and is for sale on Amazon. -Xpctr8 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far I'm leaning towards redirecting it to the author's page with history. I'm finding where it's certainly a popular work and I'm finding evidence that it's used in some college classes, although not entirely enough to where I'd argue for a keep on that end. It is used as a reference for some works (like this one) and is mentioned with regularity in various books, but again- not enough to where I'd really argue for a keep using that angle. I am finding some reviews and mentions (see here), but it's very slow going so far because of how old the work itself is. I figure that leaving the article's history intact and just redirecting it would be helpful in case we ever do unearth enough sourcing to merit a keep in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a handful of reviews for NBOOK purposes and this is a borderline case but willing to give it a pass since it's one of those "quite bestsellers" that sell a steady amount never making the best seller list but accumulate more sales over time than many best-sellers do (short vs long sales). Best seller is not notable either but I'm pretty sure more sources can be found given its age and sales. -- GreenC 04:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 August 2014 (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.