Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Meaning of Matthew

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 redirect to Matthew_Shepard#Advocacy. There is a weak consensus that this article passes WP:NBOOK and can be fixed. However, since the article's creator has already merged almost all the text to Matthew Shepard I'm going to redirect it as an editorial decision. Whether it stays a redirect or the article is restored the semi-promotional language needs to be cleaned up. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Matthew[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable book; should be a paragraph in the Matthew Shepard article at best. Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting article. I have taken the opinion of OrangeMike and already opened a separate section in Matthew Shepard article, although the book portrays the advocacy and legal struggle of the writer, the mother of the victim for enacting of gay hate crime laws largely known as the Matthew Shepard law. The book was also on the New York Times Bestsellers List and was subject of reprints, softcover issue and media coverage. But doesn't matter really. This page can serve as a redirect to that specific section werldwayd (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:NBOOK: it was on the NYT bestseller list (as well as the Globe and Mail bestseller list) and was picked up by reliable sources (among others, the SF Chronicle, CBS, NPR, Entertainment Weekly, and Newsweek). The advertising tone should be corrected through normal editing, not deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roscolese is right WP:NBOOK pass.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Roscelese.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 21:50, 24 August 2011 (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.