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.
Fails
WP:NBOOK, as I can't find any significant coverage of this novel. The author appears to be non-notable as well, at least as a writer. Unsourced original research.
Lennart97 (
talk)
13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong delete - incredibly obscure book by obscure writer. NO sources, no assertion of notability whatsoever, just a plot summary with coy euphemisms. --
Orange Mike |
Talk14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Definitely not notable. Amazon.com has no reviews whatsoever for a book that has been out for a quarter of a century, and illustrates it with the cover of a completely different book in French. Amazon.co.uk shows a different cover (correct, but obviously computer-generated) and likewise no reviews.
Athel cb (
talk)
18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I wouldn't expect Amazon reviews for a book which predates Amazon. Works from the 80s and 90s can be the hardest to find sources for, since the coverage is usually in print which has often not been digitized. This may not be a book which currently attracts much notice, but notability is not temporary, and to my surprise I think it has sufficient reviews to pass NBOOK. I found records of a review by Alison Woodhouse in the Times Literary Supplement, 1995-06-09 (4810), p.27; added to what appear to be reviews in New Scientist, Jewish Quarterly, and Books Ireland above, it seems to exceed the minimums for NBOOK. It would be nice to be able to access the sources in full to confirm that they are full reviews (of at least a paragraph) rather than simply notices of a recently-published book, but the snippets indicate that the reviewer has actually read the work in question. The article is unsourced, but it's also all plot summary, which is assumed to be sourced to the book itself; I don't think it's in such a bad state that
WP:DYNAMITE would apply. I expected this to be an obvious delete but I actually think NBOOK supports keeping the article.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
02:23, 9 November 2021 (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.
Fails
WP:NBOOK, as I can't find any significant coverage of this novel. The author appears to be non-notable as well, at least as a writer. Unsourced original research.
Lennart97 (
talk)
13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong delete - incredibly obscure book by obscure writer. NO sources, no assertion of notability whatsoever, just a plot summary with coy euphemisms. --
Orange Mike |
Talk14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Definitely not notable. Amazon.com has no reviews whatsoever for a book that has been out for a quarter of a century, and illustrates it with the cover of a completely different book in French. Amazon.co.uk shows a different cover (correct, but obviously computer-generated) and likewise no reviews.
Athel cb (
talk)
18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I wouldn't expect Amazon reviews for a book which predates Amazon. Works from the 80s and 90s can be the hardest to find sources for, since the coverage is usually in print which has often not been digitized. This may not be a book which currently attracts much notice, but notability is not temporary, and to my surprise I think it has sufficient reviews to pass NBOOK. I found records of a review by Alison Woodhouse in the Times Literary Supplement, 1995-06-09 (4810), p.27; added to what appear to be reviews in New Scientist, Jewish Quarterly, and Books Ireland above, it seems to exceed the minimums for NBOOK. It would be nice to be able to access the sources in full to confirm that they are full reviews (of at least a paragraph) rather than simply notices of a recently-published book, but the snippets indicate that the reviewer has actually read the work in question. The article is unsourced, but it's also all plot summary, which is assumed to be sourced to the book itself; I don't think it's in such a bad state that
WP:DYNAMITE would apply. I expected this to be an obvious delete but I actually think NBOOK supports keeping the article.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
02:23, 9 November 2021 (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.