Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong Medicine (novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Medicine (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability (WP:notability (books)), no references, just plot summary. RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This Arthur Hailey novel was described by the New York Times as a "best seller" that was made into a TV movie in this article. The fact that the NYT didn't like it doesn't detract from its notability. Accordingly, it meets the third section of the notability guideline for books. In addition, there are plenty of reviews available by adding Hailey's name to a Google News Archive search of the commonly-named book title here.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (ec) The article is in rather dire condition, but this notable potboiler came from a prominent author, hit the New York Times Bestseller List for weeks, was actually reviewed in the Times [1], became a TV miniseries, and otherwise became a durable tumor on the body of American literature, as demonstrated by the extensive array of GBooks hits [2]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's assessment of Arthur Hailey's literary legacy, but I believe that Mr. Hailey cared more about royalty checks that critical acclaim. Many of his works, including this one, are notable nonetheless. Notability in the realm of books here is not the same as great literature. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though the article needs to be rewritten to diminish the plot and add a few other things, like the reception. Meets the GNG (and the book guidelines) with signifcant published reviews, including the NYTImes, BBC, Telegraph, In fact it reached #3 on the NYT Best Seller List [1] , There's even a long NYT article on a video movie based on it. [3] The nom said no evidence of notability , but its the subject, not the article which has to be notable, and the most superficial gsearch could have told him otherwise. Nominations such as this can however be helpful, for they offer yet further evidence why WP:BEFORE should be required. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 15 August 2011 (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.