Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Primate's Memoir

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. Per WP:SNOW.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Primate's Memoir

[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)

There are no links, the significance of the book is not shown.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK given coverage and reviews in The New York Times, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Auto/Biography Studies, Publishers Weekly, AudioFile, Time, Library Journal, and more. The book is notable and so the article should be improved, not deleted. DanCherek (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dan's many sources are clearly enough on their own to establish notability, and it wasn't hard for me to find even more coverage in the press, for instance the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ([1]), the Star Tribune ([2]), and Newsday ([3][4]). I really question whether an adequate WP:BEFORE search was done here: just a quick Google News or Google Scholar search yields a number of results, and the statement that "there are no links, the significance of the book is not shown" doesn't suggest that there was even an effort to look for sources in the first place. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I am the first one to recommend deletion of an article not meeting WP:GNG however just because no sources are included in the article does not mean these sources do not exist, and others have pointed out they do exist. Therefore, this should be kept and if it needs improvement...respectfully WP:DIY rather than nominate for deletion.... - Such-change47 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated for a significant prize, plus the sourcing identified here is more than enough for NBOOKS/GNG. While I'm sure the nom was in good faith, there are no links is not a reason for deletion. Star Mississippi 17:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Lot's of reliable references available and it has improvement opportunities. Mommmyy (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I added infobox, cover, sources and reception section. Artem.G (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources have now been added, meets WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2021 (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.