- 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The result was nomination withdrawn in favor of redirect. Speedy Keep #1 (WP:Non-admin closure).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The Great Reporters[edit]
- The Great Reporters (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)
Contested prod, although no reason given when that happened. Fails WP:NBOOK. It fails criteria 2-5 prima facie. The only plausible contender, then, is criterion 1. However, this book seems to have been the subject of mere capsule reviews (the only two of which I could find I added to the article) and this, which is hardly even a review, but rather a summary of the contents. The author wrote a quite famous textbook on journalism, but this later work is not notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
'- noteworthy book and author Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- redirect to author, the author bio is so short that even full incorporation of this article would still be just out of stub state. rather than two stubs, we have one article that may approach relevance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point, redirect to author Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK, then. Nomination withdrawn as it is a plausible search term.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.