355:
I know what your implying mister, and I dont like it. I just saw this article yesterday and I felt it was stupid. Plus, so three newspapers report on it, including one big tabloid. So what, they dont count for much. For notable, this article should have TIME or
Washington Post or something. Brit
88:
83:
92:
75:
79:
297:. Knowledge's integrity and credibility is irrelevant. The fact that a previous article was deleted is also irrelevant, since it doesn't resemble the current article in content and sources. —
71:
63:
128:
This is a silly book and stupid. Knowledge is losing its integrity and crediblty by keeping this article up. Plus I found out this article got deleted because it is nonnotable.
315:- Now that the article has reliable sources, there's no reason to delete on grounds of notability, and the nominator hasn't really provided any other rationale than that they
148:
121:
365:
350:
332:
307:
285:
262:
248:
223:
201:
184:
164:
137:
57:
341:
Also, if I'm not mistaken, nominating this article for deletion was the nominator's first edits. I say this as a statement of fact, and not to imply anything.
190:
17:
235:-- The article is now sourced with reliable sources (The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, and Advertising Age) meeting
384:
303:
219:
160:
36:
383:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
53:
346:
328:
316:
294:
273:
48:. No valid reason given for the nomination. "This is a silly book and stupid" is not a valid argument.
299:
215:
156:
180:
357:
254:
193:
129:
281:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
361:
342:
324:
258:
244:
197:
133:
320:
176:
206:
277:
109:
240:
236:
210:
377:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
293:- No viable reason for deletion given. "Silly & stupid" ==
189:
But it got deleted earlier in 2007 for being nonnotable:
116:
105:
101:
97:
72:
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That
England Ruined the World
64:
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That
England Ruined the World
175:This book is notable; has even been in the news.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
387:). No further edits should be made to this page.
149:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
319:. I'm thinking this one might be headed for
143:
147:: This debate has been included in the
276:" is an invalid reason for deletion.
7:
356:newspapers arent anything special.
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
404:
366:18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
351:18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
333:18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
308:17:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
286:17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
263:17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
249:17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
224:17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
202:17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
185:17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
165:17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
138:17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
58:18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
380:Please do not modify it.
253:But its a stupid book.
192:Why the difference now?
32:Please do not modify it.
207:Consensus can change
167:
152:
395:
382:
153:
119:
113:
95:
44:The result was
34:
403:
402:
398:
397:
396:
394:
393:
392:
391:
385:deletion review
378:
300:LinguistAtLarge
274:I don't like it
216:LinguistAtLarge
157:LinguistAtLarge
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
401:
399:
390:
389:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
336:
335:
310:
295:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
288:
267:
266:
265:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
169:
168:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
400:
388:
386:
381:
375:
374:
367:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:don't like it
314:
311:
309:
306:
305:
301:
296:
292:
289:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
225:
222:
221:
217:
212:
208:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
170:
166:
163:
162:
158:
150:
146:
142:
141:
140:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
379:
376:
312:
298:
290:
269:
232:
214:
172:
155:
144:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
343:Umbralcorax
325:Umbralcorax
323:territory.
270:Speedy keep
173:Strong Keep
46:Speedy keep
272:, saying "
211:notability
209:, as can
177:Kingpin13
321:snowball
122:View log
278:Nyttend
241:J.Mundo
89:protect
84:history
358:Tversl
255:Tversl
194:Tversl
130:Tversl
117:delete
93:delete
50:bogdan
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
362:talk
347:talk
329:talk
313:Keep
304:Talk
291:Keep
282:talk
259:talk
245:talk
239:. --
237:WP:N
233:Keep
220:Talk
198:talk
181:talk
161:Talk
154:-- —
145:Note
134:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
213:. —
364:)
349:)
331:)
302:•
284:)
261:)
247:)
218:•
200:)
183:)
159:•
151:.
136:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
360:(
345:(
327:(
280:(
257:(
243:(
196:(
179:(
132:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.