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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Could find nothing to suggest this book passes
WP:GNG. One of the top serch returns was the Wikipedia page for 13....not very promising whether you are superstitious or not.
TheLongTone (
talk) 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Note to nominator
TheLongTone, there are certain kinds of topics where simple-minded web searches just aren't useful. You tried searching for "13", and were drowned in references to other kinds of thirteen? Well, I searched for the author, Zeitoun, and had no trouble finding other reviews. I
included some of them in the article.
Geo Swan (
talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Aren't both GNG and
WP:Notability (books) relevant when evualating the notability of books?
Criteria #1 says: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The guideline requires at least two and the article now has three.
Geo Swan (
talk) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I did a number of searches. I am far from conviced by the references. The Quill & Quire ref is solid I agree, but the independence of the second seems questionable and the third is fundamentally about the author. And the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace.
TheLongTone (
talk) 10:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
TheLongTone:, you write: "...but the independence of the second seems questionable..." but you don't explain this concern over its independence. Here is what
WP:Notability_(books)#cite_note-independent-3 says about indepence: "Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." Robertson is a literary guy, who, among other things, reviews books. His work was sufficientlly well respected that a publisher decided to publish a collection of his reviews. Forgive me, but it seems to me that, the only way you could argue his review did not measure up to the notability guide's definition of independence would be if Robertson worked for Zeitoun's publisher, or was related to Zeitoun. Is that what you meant? How did you establish Robertson was not independent from Zeitoun's publisher?
With regard to your comment: "...the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace." Well, this discussion shouldn't be about Zeitoun's personal notability, but rather about the novel's notability. I'll tell you what, if someone starts
Mary-Lou Zeitoun, and someone else starts
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Lou Zeitoun I'll look forward to reading your arguments Zeitoun isn't notable there. I suggest those arguments are off-topic here.
If you are arguing the Globe and Mail reference doesn't measure up to the guidelines requirements, can I draw your attention to what
WP:Notability_(books)#cite_note-subject-1 says? It says "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Well, the Globe and Mail devoted a short paragraph to Zeitoun, and a longer paragraph to the novel. Is that one paragraph what the notability guideline means by trivial treatment? Is the coverage of the book a mere entry in a list? No, it is more than 100 words -- ie not a "passing mention."Geo Swan (
talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. As a rule, I'm profoundly unconvinced that any novel's article ever needs to exist before the writer who wrote the novel has an article — there can never be any such thing as a novel that's somehow notable despite being written by an author who isn't, because any notability claim that gets a novel over NBOOK by definition also gets its author over NAUTHOR — but this does plainly have the critical attention needed to stave off deletion, with the nominator's problems caused by searching for the general "13" (in which this would obviously disappear beneath waves of other usages) rather than the more targeted "13 Zeitoun" that would find the right stuff.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (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.
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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Could find nothing to suggest this book passes
WP:GNG. One of the top serch returns was the Wikipedia page for 13....not very promising whether you are superstitious or not.
TheLongTone (
talk) 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Note to nominator
TheLongTone, there are certain kinds of topics where simple-minded web searches just aren't useful. You tried searching for "13", and were drowned in references to other kinds of thirteen? Well, I searched for the author, Zeitoun, and had no trouble finding other reviews. I
included some of them in the article.
Geo Swan (
talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Aren't both GNG and
WP:Notability (books) relevant when evualating the notability of books?
Criteria #1 says: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The guideline requires at least two and the article now has three.
Geo Swan (
talk) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I did a number of searches. I am far from conviced by the references. The Quill & Quire ref is solid I agree, but the independence of the second seems questionable and the third is fundamentally about the author. And the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace.
TheLongTone (
talk) 10:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
TheLongTone:, you write: "...but the independence of the second seems questionable..." but you don't explain this concern over its independence. Here is what
WP:Notability_(books)#cite_note-independent-3 says about indepence: "Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book." Robertson is a literary guy, who, among other things, reviews books. His work was sufficientlly well respected that a publisher decided to publish a collection of his reviews. Forgive me, but it seems to me that, the only way you could argue his review did not measure up to the notability guide's definition of independence would be if Robertson worked for Zeitoun's publisher, or was related to Zeitoun. Is that what you meant? How did you establish Robertson was not independent from Zeitoun's publisher?
With regard to your comment: "...the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace." Well, this discussion shouldn't be about Zeitoun's personal notability, but rather about the novel's notability. I'll tell you what, if someone starts
Mary-Lou Zeitoun, and someone else starts
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Lou Zeitoun I'll look forward to reading your arguments Zeitoun isn't notable there. I suggest those arguments are off-topic here.
If you are arguing the Globe and Mail reference doesn't measure up to the guidelines requirements, can I draw your attention to what
WP:Notability_(books)#cite_note-subject-1 says? It says "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Well, the Globe and Mail devoted a short paragraph to Zeitoun, and a longer paragraph to the novel. Is that one paragraph what the notability guideline means by trivial treatment? Is the coverage of the book a mere entry in a list? No, it is more than 100 words -- ie not a "passing mention."Geo Swan (
talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. As a rule, I'm profoundly unconvinced that any novel's article ever needs to exist before the writer who wrote the novel has an article — there can never be any such thing as a novel that's somehow notable despite being written by an author who isn't, because any notability claim that gets a novel over NBOOK by definition also gets its author over NAUTHOR — but this does plainly have the critical attention needed to stave off deletion, with the nominator's problems caused by searching for the general "13" (in which this would obviously disappear beneath waves of other usages) rather than the more targeted "13 Zeitoun" that would find the right stuff.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (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.