Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Anthropology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 6 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 17:32, 6 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be purely promotional, with no indication of notability Noisy | Talk 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above. Noisy | Talk 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, could be expanded out of stub Benon 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Appears to be a perfectly verifiable book. I don't get what's "purely promotional" about this article, from looking the article history. It is also used to help with citing sources, example Robert John Braidwood. --W.marsh 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added the article, hoping to expand it at a later date, because I was referring to the work in various anthropology-related articles. I neither work for the publisher or any other company related to the book, and have no financial interest in seeing it promoted (indeed, I imagine that it will sell much to anyone except libraries, making promotion faitly redundant; SAGE will presumably already have that covered). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems to be a verifiable book. Carioca 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- no compelling reason to delete. Jkelly 21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there were some links to the more significant articles in which it is a necessary reference, it would be more obvious that it is a page needed by other pages. If it was expanded by a hundred words or so rather promptly, I'd say keep. s it is, it is doing no harm so I certainly wouldn't say delete. Midgley 21:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep, notable and verifiable book and as per Mel's expansion. --Terence Ong 02:25, 13 March 2006 (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.