The result was keep. Merge discussions (and they may well be appropriate) may occur outside of this Afd. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Though an old book, I do not think this particular book is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on WP:BK. It's great as a source, but what makes this book encyclopedic? The author of this Wikipedia page was involved in the "rediscovery" and "redistribution" of the book electronically, and for that they should be thanked. However, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia article it does not deserve. Use it as a source for fearsome critters, but an entire article devoted to a book so obscure that no copies could be located for a number of years? Also, no notable reviews, awards, etc. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merge discussions (and they may well be appropriate) may occur outside of this Afd. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Though an old book, I do not think this particular book is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on WP:BK. It's great as a source, but what makes this book encyclopedic? The author of this Wikipedia page was involved in the "rediscovery" and "redistribution" of the book electronically, and for that they should be thanked. However, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia article it does not deserve. Use it as a source for fearsome critters, but an entire article devoted to a book so obscure that no copies could be located for a number of years? Also, no notable reviews, awards, etc. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply