Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izpred kongresa

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 merge to Jana Kolarič. Since the redirect has already been implemented, a merge can be carried out from the article history. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Izpred kongresa

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

Very short without claim of notability, and the author does not have a WP page. If someone is interested in this topic/author, the best option would be to make an article for the author. But currently, I do not see how this improves wikipedia ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Jana Kolarič. If there's not enough info about the book the author seems notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The nominator has not described research that shows the subject is not notable. The author is notable, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4] and the book also seems notable, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I would support a merge to the article on the author+books, but until that article has been started we should keep this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author being notable is irrelevant as to whether one of their books notable enough for its own article. The links you posted about the book, two of them are the book for sale, one of them is a blog post.. I don't know if any of those are reliable sources, do you? Or did you just google it and list results? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: None of those sources discuss the book in detail, apart from a brief mention. The articles appear to be about the author or other topics, and on none does the title of the book get mentioned more than twice. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled "Izpred kongresa" Kolarič and listed some of the first 30 results. There are many more. I do not known enough about Slovenia to evaluate the sources, but based on number of different websites and length of text, the author is notable and the book probably is. The Slovenian Wikipedia has articles on Jana Kolarič and Izpred kongresa, which also suggests notability. I would be fine with a combined article, redirecting the book title to the article on the author+books, but first that article has to be started. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious about how can a Slovene Wikipedia article, written by a single person with evident promotional interest, be considered evidence of notability... --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-English Wikipedia has an article on a subject, in my experience it is usually notable. Certainly that is the case with Jana Kolarič. Not so sure about the book. Obviously the search results are more relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable book by a non-notable author. This may seem biased, but what notable recognition has she or the book actually won? I really don't get this Wikipedia anymore: people have redirected Lek (pharmaceutical company) to another article, though the company was a major employer and a national pride at a time, but would like to keep the article on an obscure work by an obscure author. All that I see is that someone tried really hard to make her biography seem notable in the Slovene Wikipedia.[10] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleassar: You're wrong about the author not being notabl...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into the new article on Jana Kolarič. The article on the book is short. It could be more useful to readers to redirect them to the article on the author, which contains information on the book. The redirect could always be turned back into a regular article if the book becomes more notable, for example if it is turned into a hit movie. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or merge into the author's article. @Eleassar: The author is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three of the !votes say "Keep or merge". Which one? Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 19:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a clear and unambiguous consensus to me. Either keep it or merge it, depending. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt this author is notable, and her book even more so. The arbitrary statement 'Eleassar, the author is notable' does not convince me. Any sources and well-founded arguments to confirm her notability? The links provided above are not: they contain numerous articles on writers, both notable and non-notable. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 00:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleassar: You could nominate Jana Kolarič for deletion, but you would be wasting everyone's time. The article cites several sources that discuss the subject in some depth, and many more could be cited. She is one of the better-known living Slovenian authors. The question is whether we keep the article about the book, or find a volunteer to merge its content into the article on the author. The default if nobody cares to merge is to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More arbitrary statements... "Special mention by a jury' does not make her notable; neither does a single play on a radio. Anyway, it may be that I'm mistaken, that she really is notable and has somehow only stayed out of my consciousness. I'll ask another Slovenian user about this. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleassar: The general notability guidelines apply to anything from a ping-pong player to a hat. A subject is notable if it has been discussed in some depth by independent sources. It does not have to be "special" in some way. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia. The guidelines just weed out topics nobody is interested in. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

First, you don't have to ping me all the time: I keep this page on my watchlist and find this rather annoying.

Second. there are other criteria besides 'discussed in some depth by independent sources'. For biographies, they're listed at WP:BIO. In particular:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

I don't think she meets and of these.

As to the book, a book is notable if "it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."

Among the links cited above, there is no such link; the first is a bookshoper's description, while the second and the third do not discuss the book in any detail. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guidelines apply to all articles. If a subject meets those criteria, it is notable and the article should be kept. Project-specific guidelines give criteria that can justify keeping an article that does not meet the general guidelines. A subject may be relevant to several projects, each with different guidelines. It can fail all the project-specific guidelines and still be notable if it has attracted attention from independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does not meet these criteria, it should in general not be kept without significant evidence of notability. It has been presented neither for the book nor for the person. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Jana Kolarič is based entirely on a sample of independent sources available online (mostly ones that showed up on Google Images). It is hard to see how an article this long could be based on no more than passing mentions of the subject. It would be frivolous to nominate it for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll say let's keep the article on the author and redirect this page there. The sources on the book listed above don't provide the required independent material for its proper article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can do the merge. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr. Blofeld, who started the article, jumped the gun by changing it into a redirect to Jana Kolarič, but everyone agrees that is what should be done. I say, just close this discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2017 (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.