Talk:Anima (novel)

Untitled
The deletion template has been replaced with a 1970s sf-novel-stub template. Deletion is inappropriate here because a stub template is more appropriate. As currently written, the main page of this article provides interested individuals with a framework upon which to build more facts relating to the novel in question. It is possible that this article should be renamed or moved instead of deleted. A lot of novels could share the same title, but there aren't that many novels with the title "Anima (1972 novel)" (last I checked, there aren't any at all).

True, this article isn't written that well, but the same thing can be said of a lot of stub articles. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still not clear if this article can meet notability guidelines. There are zero citations to reliable sources demonstrating its notability.  Has this book been reviewed at all?  That would be a good start.--RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would rather read a stub than no stub at all.  The problem, here, is really one of consensus, even if the citations are temporarily lacking.   I agree it would be nice if someone somewhere came along and added citations to it.   That would be great.   It would be terrific.   But right now, it has the stub template on it, inviting people to come along and do just that.   One of the problems in finding literature where a book review already exists (which would lend itself to a citation) is that the author had the strange habit of switching her pseudonyms around, every time she wrote a book.   As I understand it, she's more famous for her mystery novels than her novels on "spirituality", and she switched her pseudonyms around accordingly.  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just found a bunch of cites, but it will take me a while tracking them down, and reducing them to a form suitable for Wikipedia.  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)