Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late
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The result was Withdrawn as Abductive has shown clear evidence of notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late[edit]
- The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late (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)
No clear reason why this short work should meet the notability policy. A shame, perhaps, but we cannot clutter WP up with everything under the sun. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Part of Tolkien's work and related to other, well-established articles. Have we run out of hard disk space? (I have alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth) --Pgallert (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Supply a bunch of reliable third-party sources discussing the subject and I'd be delighted to withdraw. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at your alert to the Wikiproject. That's Campaigning. Neutralise it please. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be a useful article. I suggest keeping it. —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL: We need something firmer than that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There should be an article on Tolkien's poetry where this could be mentioned as one of his poems. Without secondary sources that talk about this one WP policy says there shouldn't be a stand-alone article on it. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added a secondary source. Elphion (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there are 3 Google News hits and 45 Google Book hits. The Books hits reveal scholarly attention. Therefore topic is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 21:15, 21 January 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.