Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art and Upheaval

: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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

=[[Art and Upheaval]]=

:{{la|Art and Upheaval}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_and_Upheaval Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Art and Upheaval}})

Not much out there on the book. There is a nice review in Yes, but that's about it. The rest are merely trivial mentions on News, Scholar, and Highbeam. Books shows the book exists, as you might expect, but that's it. Newspapers had nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - after Tokyogirl79's work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It looks like it's a copyvio since portions are taken verbatim from [http://www.comminit.com/unicef-global/node/299668 this site]. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:*No... this was published after the WP article, but this still feels like it's copyvio from somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:*[http://www.newvillagepress.net/book/?GCOI=97660100389980 The publisher website] shows that various outlets have reviewed the book, although I will say that I'd prefer if we could verify these somehow before counting them towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:*I've greatly cleaned the article up and added some reviews. It should pass guidelines now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Where did you find those reviews, {{u|Tokyogirl79}}? I went back to the search engines and still didn't see them. I'll be withdrawing the nom after I hear back from you, but thought it might be nice to know how you found them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

:*~~I made a sacrifice to Cthulu and gained l337 searching powers. (Not really.)~~ I found the publisher's page, which had reviews listed with the media outlet and the publication details, which made it easier to search for the specific reviews. Not all of these outlets came up in a Google search, but for the most part they showed up when I looked through their websites. To be honest, I was pretty surprised to find them as well. I'd been pretty certain that I wasn't going to find anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

::*Thanks. Nice work {{U|Tokyogirl79}}! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 7 November 2015 (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.