Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cubs Fan's Guide To Happiness

: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, consensus is that it just about passes the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

=[[The Cubs Fan's Guide To Happiness]]=

Please Delete. This is an unimportant book. It was presumably added to Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that it was written by George Ellis the cosmologist. In fact it was written by another George Ellis, the co-founder and managing editor of "The Heckler".

See http://www.theheckler.com/store/shop/item.aspx?itemid=11 PedroElls (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This book hasn't received any coverage in third-party sources and the author doesn't seem otherwise notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Hobit; seems to have been covered in a couple decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - I've seen way more notable articles get deleted! TheProf | Talk 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A google news search finds three Chicago Sun Time's articles behind a pay wall. Look like non-trivial mentions, but don't know for certain. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per reasoning of Hobit. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to The Heckler (newspaper). I don't consider that one and a half reviews (basically) from the same publication passes WP:BK, and we don't have an article on the author. (Oh, and I imagine it was added by a Cubs fan, and the link to George Ellis was just coincidental.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

:* Comment From http://www.cubsguide.com/press.htm it looks like there is at least one Chicago Tribune article also. I think this needs to be a keeper. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Oh, from the same site, it looks like RedEye has a rather long article on in. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, barely within regs, a google search shows that the author is only known for the book and vice versa. I saw no awards, commendations, or any other notable mentions save a few reviews from some newspapers.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 03:47, 23 March 2008 (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.