Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ways of Hearing

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. Consensus reads: Sources found (with some difficulty) subsequent to nomination that indicate notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of Hearing[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)

Does not pass WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what the ref URL in the article is about, even just trying to go to the root domain times out. But, I was able to find book reviews in The Guardian, Financial Times London, Birmingham Post, and The Times Literary Supplement. I replaced the unverifiable quotes in the article with content and refs (except the TLS review, I put those details on the Talk page in case any other editor has access to it because I don't). Schazjmd (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep has a couple reviews cited which confer notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just checking - when I looked for refs I found a number for a different book with the same name, by Damon Krukowski. That’s not what you’re finding, right? Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Schazjmd: thanks for finding those. I have a subscription to the Financial Times but a search on that site does not show any sign of ref 3. I’ve also looked on the Birmingham Post site and can’t find ref 2 either. Could you provide a link to them please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, I found them all through my library proxy. I haven't found a way to figure out a non-KCLS proxy URL from a site I access that way. I searched through the library's ProQuest db, in case the latter part of the URL is of any help to you: /docview/228688700/fulltext/D0E9FB93633E4572PQ/15?accountid=46 and docview/323669040/D0E9FB93633E4572PQ/3?accountid=46 Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. As you said I can’t make them work as I don’t have access to ProQuest. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF regarding the paywalled reviews of his works in three reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2019 (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.