Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Heretics

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. ✗plicit 11:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Heretics

[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)

the references are about the subject, not the book. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a review of the book in 1971 in Detroit Free Press (here, behind newspapers.com paywall. I finally broke down and got an account!); another review the same year in El Paso Herald-Post (here, again behind newspapers.com paywall); another in the San Bernardino County Sun, where it's called "the first anthology of its kind" (here); The Guardian (here); the Miami Herald (here); The Baltimore Sun (here); and the Courier-Post (here). Each of the reviews listed are solely about the book and not just passing mentions or listings of book sales. I also made sure each of the reviews above were not reprints; they are all separate and I believe most all have bylines. If any editors don't have a Newspapers account and wants confirmation on the bylines for each source, let me know.

This book easily passes NBOOK for me. The sources in the article right now simply need to be removed and the ones actually about the book incorporated. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews identified by Kbabej. pburka (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an NBOOK pass per Kbabej's sources. As an aside, Kbabej, welcome to the Newspapers.com crew! It helps if you clip the article, mark them as public, and then link the clipping so editors without site accounts can see at least a low-quality version. Here are the clips:
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great to know! Thank you, I’ll do that going forward! —Kbabej (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (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.