Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Weller/First Into Nagasaki

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Weller/First Into Nagasaki

Essay —G716 <^T·_C> 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, and non notable person; fails WP:BIO in basic criteria. Also appears to contain original research. ThePointblank (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete plus it sounds like a slam article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is certainly much too long for what it is. "Conditions in Nagasaki in 1945" immediately after the bombing would make an encyclopaedic article (if it does not exist already). The observations of George Weller might well be a major source for that. IN other words the present article might be pruned down to a fraction of its length and moved to a Nagasaki-related title, but the article in its present form CANNOT be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the actual title of the article should be simply First into Nagasaki -- George Weller is a pulitzer-prize winning author & this is one of his major books, published many years after the events. . For the importance of the book, prevented from publication by US censorship, and the manuscript lost for decades, then published in the Daily Mainichi in Japan &* subsequently as a book, see the links at the end of the article on the author -- including The Guardian, [1], which published extensive extracts from the book, BBC News published a very full review with photographs as [2] . And other reviews of the book, all from google News-- NPR, Times, MSNBC, and 15 others from Google News alone. Librarians like me have long despaired that people are unwilling to look beyond Google for references, but all this was in Googe News--are people here unwilling to do even that? What point is our insistence on V if people are willing to comment on notability without even attempting to look for sources at all? The article of course needs some editing, to emphasize the material from the reviews. this is one time where the author did it right. She put the references into the main article on the author . another editor split it, and did not copy the relevant references. (the author has obvious COI, but the man is unquestionably notable from the prize, and the book from the reviews. She did not write the article very well, as is common with COI, but she did include the key references.) DGG (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom per DGG—G716 <^T·_C> 00:09, 3 November 2008 (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.