Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad White Giant: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Mad White Giant: nom withdraws |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:: I'd quietly observe that the criterion here is not multiple sources, but Substantial Coverage in those sources. That is best shown by finding quotations that demonstrate critical opinion in favour of definite notability for what is an early book by an author who became much better known later (and not as a novelist), and of course an article which cannot inherit notability from anywhere else. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 08:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
:: I'd quietly observe that the criterion here is not multiple sources, but Substantial Coverage in those sources. That is best shown by finding quotations that demonstrate critical opinion in favour of definite notability for what is an early book by an author who became much better known later (and not as a novelist), and of course an article which cannot inherit notability from anywhere else. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 08:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''' Just expanded the article and added some independent sources. I reckon it's a keeper now. [[User:Ackatsis|Ackatsis]] ([[User talk:Ackatsis|talk]]) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' Just expanded the article and added some independent sources. I reckon it's a keeper now. [[User:Ackatsis|Ackatsis]] ([[User talk:Ackatsis|talk]]) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: That's a whole lot better. Nom is happy to withdraw. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 09:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:56, 31 January 2012
- Mad White Giant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about an unremarkable "semi-autobiographical" novel by an author better known as a 'reality' TV personality and explorer. No reliable independent sources have been added since its creation in 2006: only source is author's website, so article may be promotional. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't really given this article any thought in the last five years. I did manage to find at least one journal article that discusses the book in detail: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/ESC/article/viewFile/308/285. I'm willing to try salvaging some respectability from the article, but it may take a few days; I'm about to leave for work. Ackatsis (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Google news link above shows multiple reliable sources exist, even though at least one is behind a paywall. Jclemens (talk)
- I'd quietly observe that the criterion here is not multiple sources, but Substantial Coverage in those sources. That is best shown by finding quotations that demonstrate critical opinion in favour of definite notability for what is an early book by an author who became much better known later (and not as a novelist), and of course an article which cannot inherit notability from anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Just expanded the article and added some independent sources. I reckon it's a keeper now. Ackatsis (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's a whole lot better. Nom is happy to withdraw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)