Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compendium Books

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium Books

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

This was moved by me to the article creator's userspace to avoid speedy deletion. The article was sourced and it seemed to me that this could potentially be a subject of more interest than what was immediately obvious. After all, it is not unknown for even small bookshops to be significant in some way (cf. Shakespeare & Company). Maybe further work on the article would reveal that this bookshop was the meeting place for some literary group or something? I warned the user that he would have some more time to work on the article, and reminded him after about a week that this was only a temporary solution (see User talk:Moses Whyte). That was in early May. As nothing has happened and the user has disappeared, I am now reverting my own move of the page and nominating it for deletion. Hegvald (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in Peter Barry's Poetry Wars as the "main UK stockist of small press poetry after the demise of 'Better Books'- "Compendium+Books"&hl=en&ei=4nQnTKjrH4ShsQa0-rTEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false - also mentioned in New British poetries: the scope of the possible - "Compendium+Books"&hl=en&ei=4nQnTKjrH4ShsQa0-rTEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result. It was an important site for the (minor) situationist arts movement - "Compendium+Books"&hl=en&ei=RnYnTLDqEdTdsAaXuLnEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu and the British poetry revival movement of the 1970s - "Compendium+Books"&hl=en&ei=hHYnTMHhE8afsQavqpjFBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7. The rest of the coverage I can find through Google is pretty insignificant, but there seems to be a case for keeping this based on the above sources. Claritas § 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is funny. I originally moved this to the the article creator's user space to avoid a speedy nomination that you, rather hastily and bitey I thought, had added to the article within its first minute of existence. Why didn't you do this research at the time, rather than just tagging it for deletion? --Hegvald (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it was a valid A7 - no claim of notability. Speedy deletion does not occur based on notability but on whether there is a claim of notability present in the article. I'd estimate that at least 95% of articles created without a claim of notability are on subjects with no notability. As a new page patroller, it's often simply not pragmatic to do a detailed check for sources on every article created which fails A7. I don't think it's particularly bitey to tag something for CSD - the CSD template is very clear what the problems are with the article, and it's up to the creator to add a claim of notability/additional citations with the hang-on tag. I agree that speedy deletion of this with hindsight seems incorrect, but I'm sticking by my decision even with hindsight - in the state which it was in, it was a perfectly acceptable candidate for A7. As it is, it will make a nice stub. Claritas § 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination, based on Claritas's comment above. --Hegvald (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2010 (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.