Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Days, 40 Hours

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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 Days, 40 Hours[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It doesn't seem like this book is notable. There's only three sources in the article. The first one is on the general idea of a 4 day week and the third is a personal blog. Going by the title of the second source it might talk about the book, but there's a good chance it's only trivially. Although if there is in-depth coverage one source isn't enough for this to be notable. Also nothing came up when I did a search for the title of the book except for things having to do with a 40 hour week more generally. I wasn't able to able to find a review or anything else that would count as an in-depth discuss of just the book. Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:GNG. Typical good sourcing and development by Toughpigs. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I improved the article with references from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, a UPI story and a paper in Business Quarterly. I also added a review from The Journal of Human Resources for the second edition of the book in 1975. NYT called it "the definitive reference work in this field" in 1976. The field didn't actually take off, but a concept doesn't have to be lasting to be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's another review here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above improvements/sources. // Timothy :: talk 00:03, 26 July 2020 (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.