Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements of International Law

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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of International Law

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

all claims are unsources, current article will not be of help for writing proper article 草花 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tiny, unsourced article, doesn't seem too notable either. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tiny, unsourced, yes, but it does indicate the book is notable. It does need serious improvement, but it should stick around. Dondegroovily (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Yes, it is probably notable to warrant a separate article, but it really does not look like it will be expanded significantly anytime soon. Until someone comes and takes this past a stub, I think it is ok to merge the information into the main author article (which is by the way not more than a start article anyways). Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to verify that this book even exists, let alone is notable. --DAJF (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked? A quick Google turns up plenty of results to show it exists. Just because there are no sources in the article does not mean that no sources exist. --Korruski (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I would have WP:PRODed it, Sadads (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article may currently be short and largely unsourced, I don't think it's correct to delete it yet. It took me less than a minute to find this source, for example. --Korruski (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Korruski (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This book is probably the most important book that Henry Wheaton has written. It is still in print today and is still used by those studying International Law. The fact that it has been translated in many languages and is still used around the globe makes the book notable. --JHvW (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google news search for the title and the name of the writer shows dozens of results. [1] These all seem to require payment to view the full articles though. But the book is reviewed in some of those article summaries. Dream Focus 09:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If you want to look in the book, you can look here or here. --JHvW (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the remark about expanding the article. As I believe this article should be kept, I am willing to expand the article to meet inclusion criteria. If neccessary I will put a provisional copy in my sandbox. --JHvW (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the book easily meets WP:NB #1 (and probably 3 & 4). A Korea Herald article noted just a few days ago that this "famous book" "became one of the must-read books in the then upper echelons of Japan" (here), it was reviewed in Atlantic Monthly in 1866 (here), and New York Times articles have covered it several times (including here & here). And this Oxford Press published 2004 book calls the book "a classic treatise" and then goes on to discuss it. This 2004 Clarendon Press book says the book was "entered into the canon of Americna law." This is not even a close call. I see why a quick look might lead one in the other direction, but I would hope the deletes and nom woudl change their !votes at this point. Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on a review of the sources in the article, which may have been added after the original nomination, and certainly of the links listed above by Novaseminary, this appears to be a somewhat important scholarly work. It is certainly covered in a way that suggests its importance. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Work has already been started on a rewrite of the article. You can see that here. The proces of verifying all the facts, adding facts where neccessary, is likely to take a few weeks (longer than this discussion). The new references will be included in the article. Please add your findings to the discussion page as they will be used (if suitable for the article). --JHvW (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Notable as several sources describe it as a very important work ([2][3][4] and others). WP:UGLY is no valid argument for deletion, the claim that this article will be of no help for writing a better one is unfounded. Also, it has improved much since nomination. --memset (talk) 09:16, 12 September 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.