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. There is no point in further discussing a page which is nowhere near the same page that was nominated, and where the available sources are so plentiful. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There are no articles, there are no sources, there is nothing at all.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to this book published by Routledge, Those United States was critically reviewed in the The Pall Mall Gazette by Rolfe Arnold Scott-James; the Daily Express by Sidney Dark; The Athenaeum; The Spectator; The Manchester Guardian; The New York Times; The Nation; The Dial by Edith Kellogg Dunton; and The Literary Digest, among others. Definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. DanCherek (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ProQuest 1295575607, ProQuest 231415041, [1], [2], [3]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I’ve added some refs based in what I can find quickly online, and it looks likely that there will be more offline in contemporary reviews and works on Bennett, given his prominence as a writer and the success of the book when published. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 25 January 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.