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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Heading 270 Degrees[edit]

Journey to Heading 270 Degrees (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)

Awards are questionable, (who awarded them?) Page only has a few reliable sources. Notability is questionable. Ism schism (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is reviewed in this phd thesis submitted to the university of Manchester. Some other sources such as this, this and this one have reviewed or mentioned the subject. By the way, I'd like to know what the nominator means by 'questionable'? I do verify the awards mentioned here as a bilingual. Consequently, the subject is notable per WP:BKCRIT #1&2. Mhhossein (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the book is the subject of instruction in the University of Pennsylvania (notable per WP:BKCRIT #4). Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the two reasons cited above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The subject clearly passes WP:N, having been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources. However, this particular article on it was created by the sockpuppet of a particularly problematic POV-pusher and copyright violator. I would have nominated it for deletion under CSD G5 but for the fact that it has many subsequent edits (by editors who I hope are not also sockpuppets). If the current article is to be kept, it should be carefully checked for POV issues and copyright violations. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Mhhossein and because article clearly passes WP:BOOK I grant that it is POV and a generally lousy article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2015 (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.