Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marigold

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Marigold

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a novel, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for novels. This is written principally in-universe, without showing much evidence of real-world significance -- the attempted notability claim is that it was a "Canadian independent bestseller", but that's sourced only to an informal list personally compiled by a writer for a single minor literary magazine, which undermines its own reliability with an "I acknowledge that this list is not at all perfect. It is only a small sampling of the data out there" warning, and thus isn't a notability-making bestseller list.
The only other source cited here is a single book review, which is fine but not enough all by itself -- even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source.
Additionally, it warrants note that the author doesn't have a WP:BLP at all -- and while that isn't a speedy deletion criterion for books in the same way that it is for musical albums whose artists don't have articles, it does still raise the question of how the book can be notable enough to warrant an article if its author isn't.
There just isn't anything here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this novel from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's really hard to assess books because the publishing industry contains as many publicists as it does publishers. No book is released in print without, behind the scenes, the publishers going to a lot of trouble to arrange interviews with anyone likely to publicise the author, wangle reviews wherever they can, and do everything possible to raise the book's profile. It's really hard to sift through the large quantity of Google hits on this book and work out which are truly independent, which not. In a way, I'm sceptical about articles on books, and feel that they are only warranted if a book has sustained coverage. We will probably only know whether a book is truly notable a couple of years after it appears. And it seems odd that we consider deleting The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse which is still on sale (in multiple formats including audio books) more than 100 years after it was written, because a Google search can't find reviews (ummm... there wasn't an internet when it would have been reviewed...) while possibly keeping this one, because it has got reviews, having been born in the publicity/internet age. I almost feel we should have a near-moratorium on books (and films!) that have just been released, but getting a Wikipedia article is now a standard part of the publicity expected by the industry. Elemimele (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changed per Oaktree b, and added the citations to the article, albeit in bulk form. Still needs cleanup, but not deletion. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's had coverage in the Globe and Mail [1], then in the CBC [2] and here (but I think it's the same review as the first one, reworded and reprinted [3]. Here's one more from CBC [4] and the Toronto Star [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2023 (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.