Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abbey (novel)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey (novel)[edit]

[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)

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK, specifically every criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case! Apparently the book won two awards in Romania; Premiul I „Vladimir Colin” and Premiul RomCon. The author's page quotes two reviews of the book but it's not immediately clear to me if they're from self-published blogs or edited publications.[1] We need to dig deeper. Haukur (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I came to this after being pinged by Haukurth (talk · contribs). I do not believe that blurbs on the author's personal page can be used as sources, regardless of their nature -- we should refer to the original sources, if anything (though yes, they do appear to be blogs). The book was however reviewed by the (now paywalled) Observator Cultural -- see here, which also mentions that it was a unique achievement in its context, for being voluminous and for receiving all relevant awards in Romania for that year. The comics inspired by the novel were also covered by Mediafax (here). There might be other reviews, but unfortunately Romanian literary magazines are going offline these months, so I can't really check that far back (though I have a faint recollection of reading about the novel in articles ca. 2002). That said, I wonder if the novel should have its own article, or whether it can/should be folded into the writer's bio. Dahn (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Dahn which seem to constitute two pieces of non-trivial coverage as needed by WP:NBOOK. We don't currently have an article on the author. If an author is primarily noted for one work then I think we're better off with an article about the work than the author. For an author with two notable works, an author article is a good idea. Not sure which is the case here but as things stand we don't have an author article to merge to. Haukur (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - orphan article on non-notable book - does not meet the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT - no major reviews or significant awards - the article links are to a database, the publisher's website and a blog (Cititor SF) - no notable references - this is just a promotional article WP:NOTPROMOTION - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of refs have been identified in this afd. Szzuk (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two sources found by Dahn are sufficient to allow the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
Cunard (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2019 (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.