Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Aesthetic Contract

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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aesthetic Contract

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

nonremarkable book, no refs provided. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination--Musa Talk 06:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've managed to find some academic reviews through my old school's database. They all appear to be from usable outlets and the only one of them (SubStance) without an article is published through the University of Wisconsin Press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is also mentioned somewhat extensively in this journal article as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

four of the cited reviews are behind academic firewalls, but im not sure of wp:notability on such refs. one is not behind a firewall, and is from a notable journal. im neutral now on deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurywoodrose, I can send you the content from some of the firewalls, but you'd need to enable your email. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also went and replaced them with general links to the articles in Muse and JSTOR. You'd still need an account to view them in their entirety, but you can still view part of them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current set of references seems to amply satisfy criterion 1 at WP:BKCRIT: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works" in independent sources; the criterion explicitly states that "published works" includes reviews. I'm not able to access the full text of the reviews in the references, but what I can read, together with the page counts, suggests that the book's discussed in non-trivial detail. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2015 (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.