Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make Your Friends and Murder Your Enemies

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 Jack Woodford. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make Your Friends and Murder Your Enemies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I thought that this was an obvious redirect as it contains only the text from the back cover of the book (possibly copyvio if it's the entire back cover), the dedication, acknowldgements, the table of contents and alternative titles considered by the author, but an editor reverted my redirect. I can't find sources meeting our criteria for notabiity. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Woodford. While this sounds like it'd be fascinating reading in general and something I think I'll get for a family member for Christmas this year, there just isn't anything out there to show that this is really notable outside of its author. There's no coverage for this book aside from it being an offhand mention in relation to its author. I really, REALLY wish I could say otherwise since this book's writing sounds like an interesting story in and of itself, but WP:ITSINTERESTING has never been a valid rationale for keeping and not every author's book will be notable outside of them. This is a valid enough redirect to his article. On a side note, I see that many of the quotes by and about him could stand to be moved to Wikiquote. We don't really list any of these in articles, so they need to be removed. I'm not familiar with how to do that, so if anyone that is savvy about that wants to do it feel free. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Woodford - Hahaha, it does seem like a book to spark one's interest, but it doesn't have any outstanding critical reviews or historic significance and therefore fails WP:BKCRIT. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Woodford. Fails notability, but still worthy of inclusion as it's a book, perhaps consider retaining some of the information as well. kikichugirl (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2013 (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.