Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crap Towns

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap Towns[edit]

Devoid of encyclopedic value MartinSpamer 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable book. --Alex | talk / review me | 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable books attached to a notable publication. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book caused controversy when published and continues to stimulate debate. I also can't help but notice that Kingston upon Hull, is one of the key pages for the person nominating this page for deletion - and it's also one of the primary Crap Towns in the book. I think the page would benefit from an additional section highlighting the controversy caused by the book. User:Stetay | 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually been added and removed several times. Artw 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unnotable book - Chris j wood 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, but edit - I still think the book is unnotable, and as pointed out below the magazine that did the survey has a grand circulation of 3000, but on reflection it was published and so I suppose it deserves its place here. But the article still reads far too much like this is WP's list of crap towns, rather than a review of a book. So needs editing to put into context. - Chris j wood 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this book sold thousands, had a sequel and a number of imitators/parodies. - fchd 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Thanks/wangi 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be susbstantial coverage. Equendil Talk 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial UK book phenomena with a web presence. Artw 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not referenced on the article. Perhaps you would like to improve the article by adding it. Might help its case. -- Chris j wood 09:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I remember media attention on the book when it was first published, but I'm not sure it's notable enough to merit its own article. Mark Grant 22:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crap Towns caused quite a media splash at the time, though I would not describe The Idler itself as a "notable publication" - it's a fairly obscure magazine with a circulation of just 3000. [1]. AdorableRuffian 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was indeed significant media interest upon publication. Badgerpatrol 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book itself is not particularly good or well-known (Like many, many other books in Wikipedia), but it does have notability (notoriety?) for the stir it caused on publishing. (On a related issue, it's true that The Idler has a small circulation, but it is well-known. How many very famous magazines/journals would need to be deleted if circulation was the only criterion?)

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.