Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Cotton

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. Paul Erik's cleanup work seems to address the concerns raised. –Juliancolton  | ^Talk 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

High Cotton (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) (delete ) – (View log)

No sources found, nobody has been arsed to find any since 10/07. Only found one small review in Google or Google News. Suggest deletion and moving High Cotton (song) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. I was inclined to agree with the Hammer, but the collection does meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and seems especially notable to fans of the prolific Joe R. Lansdale. Entries on short fiction collections are tricky because they often appear to inherit notability (by individual award-winning stories), but I don't see how this entry violates precedence of including such collections. Page needs much work, though. Perhaps disambig for "high cotton" --Junius49 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton  | ^Talk 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines and the content isn't encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep – This was one of those cases where it was helpful to go beyond just web searches to look for sources. The book was well reviewed around the time it came out: I have added five sources just now. There is enough coverage for the general notability guideline, or criterion #1 of WP:BK. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm ready to switch my vote as someone clean up the text. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll clean up the text if you'll switch your vote. Ha, just kidding. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 10 July 2009 (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.