Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Called Up Sent Down": The Bevin Boys' War

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Called Up Sent Down": The Bevin Boys' War

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards as per Wikipedia:Notability_(books). KeepItGoingForward (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Literature. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... It has a good academic citation to a detailed book review in The Oxonian Review. If anything, just needs another reference. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really long review in the Oxonian. I am finding others too. Will vote when they are added. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I easily found three reviews of the book. There are probably more. Will look later. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the AFD can be closed if one more significant review can be shown. The "Down the Pit" seems weak, but otherwise I am glad to see notability likely can be shown. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to Weak Keep. The Oxonian Review appears to be WP:RS, the reference also meets WP:SIGCOV requirements. The Spokesman appears to be a credible magazine with numerous subject-matter-experts as per the refs in the Wikipedia article, it is left-wing biased but the extent appears to fall under WP:BIASED and likely does not impact its reliability regarding book reviews, so in this case it's probably reliable, the review, which is four paragraphs long, also meets WP:SIGCOV. I'm unsure if this is reliable but the short single paragraph review IMO fails WP:SIGCOV. While I did not find more refs counting towards notability, right now there are two references that probably count towards WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria 1, making notability IMO borderline, so I'm at neutral to weak keep. If more refs are found do ping me, thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2022 (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.