Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissing the Coronavirus
- 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. Sandstein 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kissing the Coronavirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The notoriety of the work is not established in the sources.
talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Could use more work to read like an encyclopedia article. Aasim (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep the original article was a bit weak on sources, but I found a significant amount of criticism directed at the book which helps it meet Daily Dot,[3] Scary Mommy,[4] and a section of this Vice article. I also edited the article to be more encyclopedic and took out all the Amazon and GoodReads links. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep per ~HEY. ——Serial 11:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- HEY per keep. Geschichte (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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.