Talk:Rachel's Tears

Article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 16 to Apr 21 2004, consensus was to redirect to Rachel Scott. Discussion:

• Merge with Rachel Joy Scott and delete. Probably a copyvio, and definitely POV. RickK 04:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral: it's an actual book, and I pretty much de-POV'd it. However, I express no opinion as to whether the book is significant enough to get its own article...I'm not exactly in its target demo. Was it widely read at all by mainstream, or perhaps evangelical readers? Postdlf 4:34 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Not much unique content to merge, but agree with RickK. Merge and delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:38, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Original was POV enough to hurt. Now it's merely a stub that would be a good part of the main article. Lord Bob 04:43, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Original was blatantly evangelizing; current stub seems rather insignificant. Delet. Psychonaut 14:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I could see it perhaps qualifying for an article someday, but at the moment there's more info about the book in the Rachel Scott article. So merge and redirect. - Hephaestos|§ 14:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. With few exceptions, I think that books about someone, if mention is included in Wikipedia, should be separate articles rather than integrated into articles about them, and this book is significant enough for such an article. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether you like it or not, a book with an ISDN is quailified to have its own article in wikipedia. Kingturtle 17:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This book is significant enough for an article. I recognized the title immediately. (No, I haven't read it.) Cribcage 06:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• The book and the wider reaction to Rachel's death are very intertwined, indeed they fed off each other. It seems obvious to me that the best way of presenting the Rachel Scott story to our readers is to have a single merged article explaining all that. It's hardly like there are going to be length issues. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Overall, it's difficult to see how an article on a biography can have significantly different information than an article on the subject of that biography. MK 23:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete is not a valid option because of the need to preserve page history - see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You probably meant "merge and harmless redirect" which I agree with. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:18, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rewritten

i've rewritten and unredirected. it has a cover photo for infobox, and two academic chapters about the book in relation to columbine. Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

no merge; notable in itself. Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. " Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)