Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fact and Value

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fact and Value

[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)

Festschrifts abound, as noted on the 'Festschifts' page. It's not clear what makes this one worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The point about this volume having prompted Soble's criteria for a Festschrift is potentially significant, but a reader would be more likely to look for this information on the 'Festschfit' page, where it appears in greater detail (and where the criteria are described as somewhat tongue-in-cheek), or on the Soble page. Sunyataivarupam (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Festschrift where it belongs. This could have been done per WP:BOLD without AfD, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly meets WP:NB and WP:GNG with multiple reviews in academic journals. If both were brief this would be a marginal case, but Soble's goes into a lot more depth than is normal for the form. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Arms & Hearts Christopheronthemove (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I won't normally create an article on a book without three published reviews but I believe two in-depth reviews meets the bare minimum for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (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.