Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gatekeepers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:05, 11 February 2023

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. Keeper | 76 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gatekeepers

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

Not notable, non-bestseller. Page reads like WP:advertising and promotion Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 13. Snotbot t • c » 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RELUCTANT KEEP While the page does read like an advertisement, I don't think that's enough to warrant a delete, only a cleanup. And while it wasn't a best-seller, the inclusion of the book on The New York Times Book Review's List of Notable Books is enough to justify notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that at first, too, but I saw that the author was working at the NYTs at time of publication so their notice of the book seemed an in-house thing. Wikipedia doesn't have a page for NYTs notables so can't merge it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs a rewrite (and I had a go) but it has been the subject of multiple reviews[1][2][3][4][5], enough to meet WP:NBOOK notability standards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is on the NYTimes list of Notable Books. Uberaccount (talk) 03:18, 16 March 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was    '''keep'''. [[User:Keeper76|<span style="color:#21421E;font-family:comic sans ms;">Keeper</span>]] | [[User talk:Keeper76|<span style="color:#CC7722;font-family:Papyrus;">76</span>]] 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 ===[[The Gatekeepers]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}
 :{{la|The Gatekeepers}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gatekeepers|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 13#{{anchorencode:The Gatekeepers}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Gatekeepers Stats]</span>)
@@ Line 6: / Line 12: @@
 [[WP:NOTE|Not notable, non-bestseller]]. Page reads like [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|WP:advertising]] [[WP:PROMOTION|and promotion]] [[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 *<small>'''Automated comment:''' This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ([[WP:AFDHOWTO|step 3]]).  I have transcluded it to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 13]].  [[User:Snotbot|<span style="font-family: Courier, monospace;letter-spacing:5px;background:#000000;color:#00FF00;padding-left:5px;">Snotbot</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Snotbot|t]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Snotbot|c]]&nbsp;&raquo;&nbsp; 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)</small><!--Snotbot relist-->
-*'''RELUCTANT KEEP''' While the page does read like an advertisement, I don't think that's enough to warrant a delete, only a cleanup. And while it wasn't a best-seller, the inclusion of the book on [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/books/review/2002notablenonfiction.html?pagewanted=all The New York Times Book Review's List of Notable Books] is enough to justify notability. [[User:Rwiggum|<span style="color: #4B5320;">Rwiggum</span>]] (<sup>[[User talk:Rwiggum|<font color="Black"><b>Talk</b></font>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rwiggum|<font color="Black"><b>Contrib</b></font>]]</sub>) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
+*'''RELUCTANT KEEP''' While the page does read like an advertisement, I don't think that's enough to warrant a delete, only a cleanup. And while it wasn't a best-seller, the inclusion of the book on [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/books/review/2002notablenonfiction.html?pagewanted=all The New York Times Book Review's List of Notable Books] is enough to justify notability. [[User:Rwiggum|<span style="color: #4B5320;">Rwiggum</span>]] ([[User talk:Rwiggum|<sup style="color:black;"><b>Talk</b></sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Rwiggum|<sub style="color:black;"><b>Contrib</b></sub>]]) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
+::Comment: I thought that at first, too, but I saw that the author was working at the NYTs at time of publication so their notice of the book seemed an in-house thing. Wikipedia doesn't have a page for NYTs notables so can't merge it.[[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' It needs a rewrite (and I had a go) but it has been the subject of multiple reviews[http://www.hepg.org/her/booknote/68][http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-670-03135-1][https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jacques-steinberg/the-gatekeepers/][http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1210/p20s01-lehl.html][http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/the-gatekeepers-inside-the-admissions-process-of-a-premier-college], enough to meet [[WP:NBOOK]] notability standards. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
+:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature|list of Literature-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)</small>
+:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education|list of Education-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Strong Keep''' It is on the NYTimes list of Notable Books. [[User:Uberaccount|Uberaccount]] ([[User talk:Uberaccount|talk]]) 03:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>