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. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to Kill a Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While the author of this book is indubitably an important figure, the book itself does not appear to have acquired sufficient notability to merit its own article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems to have won an award from the APA and received some reviews at first glance, but I'm also finding it heavily referenced in other works, which backs up claims in the reviews that the book is considered to be fairly definitive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I found some more coverage and linked it to several other articles. As far as I can see, my belief that it was a fairly influential book seems to be pretty spot on. By all accounts it seems to be wildly, wildly influential and is pretty much THE book for the stuff it discusses. I've asked for help from a few WikiProjects (also asked for some of them to help User:Jayakuma RG as far as mentoring goes, hope you don't mind Jayukuma), so hopefully we can make it into another WP:HEY type situation. I've found enough to save it, but it really needs more attention from people who are familiar with the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please dont delete this article. This book is an important work by a noted academic. I wont add copyvio in the future. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search through JSTOR brought up seven reviews of this work from seven different journals [1]. These journal entries, in addition to the points brought up by Tokyogirl79, are more than enough to justify a keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes criteria 1 and/or 2 of WP:BKCRIT, being:
  1. It's reviewed in several, independent, reliable sources;
  2. It's won the Goodwin Writing Prize from the APA, although not exactly a "major literary award" the guideline only requires one criterion to be fulfilled anyway.

Why was this even AfD'ed? 舎利弗 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. 舎利弗, I brought this here so that a community decision could be reached on whether to have a stand-alone page for this book or to merge the content into the page on the author. I'm now convinced, by the sources added by Tokyogirl79 and the arguments of others, that it should be kept separate. I think this could be speedy-closed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Please use the talk page and the relevant Wikigroups next time. AfDs are not supposed to be tests of fire. :D 舎利弗 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2014 (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.