Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew and Improved

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no one advocating deletion (NAC) Rotten regard 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jew and Improved

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BK - If it wins the award it has been nomimated for, come back. WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an admin: WP:WITHDRAWN due to added references supporting notability. Thx Dr.K! --MJH (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are vey welcome. Thank you for your nice comments. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per exchangemagazine.com from morning post, Just become a mensch, my son by winnipegfreepress, Converting to a better man by the star.com, Jew and Improved: How Choosing to Be Chosen Made Me a Better Man by quillandquire.com, Conversion: Ben’s Version ftom publications.mcgill.ca, Also on the show: American Hunks by Brett Josef Grubisic and David Chapman Jew and Improved by Benjamin Errett, reviewed by Catherine Gildiner from cbc.ca. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- What Dr K said. --Lw (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I disagree that the title must win an award to be notable. Significant honors are associated with making the shortlist, itself a recognized literary term. It's like suggesting a book is not a best seller for making the list unless it tops the list. Not withstand, Jew and Improved achieves the threshold of significant independent coverage. It exceeds the threshold by a significant margin in its region, north of the Great Lakes. Perhaps the title has not impressed the great melting pot, but that standard is not the measure for the English speaking population of the world. Whether or not this title survives this ~~assault against including it in Wikipedia~~, it will remain a notable title. IMO, Best regards. --My76Strat (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My terse AfD nomination was inelegant - it's not that I think it needs to win to be notable, it needed to be cited as reviewed and discussed in published editorials. Since getting on the shortlist, exactly that has happened as Dr. K discovered. I apologize for not being more diligent and improving the article myself.--MJH (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You conducted this AfD with exemplary civility. Thank you again. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the portion of hyperbole where I characterized this as an assault. I admit that was way over the top and join my colleagues in acknowledging the good faith that motivated the nomination. It is certain that the article can be improved, and I should have made that happen myself. I apologize. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to clarify Strat. An AfD nomination is always a stressful event for all concerned and that is why I avoid them, almost like the proverbial plague. Your expression comparing the AfD to an assault is understandable in that context while showing a passion for your work which is commendable. That the nominator happened to be elegant and understanding is an added bonus. Alas such confluence of good faith doesn't happen so often in AfDs but we are indeed lucky to have witnessed it here. In the end I was made aware of an interesting book and helped improve it in the process while meeting an old friend such as yourself. All in all a very nice experience. Best of the Season to you Strat and to all at the AfD. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage so far is fairly light, but just enough exists for this to just squeak by. As far as the nom goes, I think that MJH did it in good faith. I know that AfDs aren't meant to be cleanup, but I'll be honest when I say that this is usually the only time some articles get any sort of editing/sourcing love. Thanks to the searching efforts of the above editors, there are enough sources for this to stay for the time being. Winning the award would be a nice addition, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that are now present, and no reason to prolong this when it's eligible for being speedy-kept. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2012 (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.