Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13 (Zeitoun 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

13 (Zeitoun novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Could find nothing to suggest this book passes WP:GNG. One of the top serch returns was the Wikipedia page for 13....not very promising whether you are superstitious or not. TheLongTone (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Note to nominator, there are certain kinds of topics where simple-minded web searches just aren't useful. You tried searching for "13", and were drowned in references to other kinds of thirteen?  Well, I searched for the author, Zeitoun, and had no trouble finding other reviews.  I included some of them in the article.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't both GNG and WP:Notability (books) relevant when evualating the notability of books? Criteria #1 says: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."  The guideline requires at least two and the article now has three.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a number of searches. I am far from conviced by the references. The Quill & Quire ref is solid I agree, but the independence of the second seems questionable and the third is fundamentally about the author. And the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace.TheLongTone (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , you write: "...but the independence of the second seems questionable..." but you don't explain this concern over its independence. Here is what WP:Notability_(books) says about indepence: "Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book."  Robertson is a literary guy, who, among other things, reviews books.  His work was sufficientlly well respected that a publisher decided to publish a collection of his reviews.  Forgive me, but it seems to me that, the only way you could argue his review did not measure up to the notability guide's definition of independence would be if Robertson worked for Zeitoun's publisher, or was related to Zeitoun.  Is that what you meant?  How did you establish Robertson was not independent from Zeitoun's publisher?
 * With regard to your comment: "...the world is littered with people who were included in 'ten to watch' type articles & who have subsequently sunk without trace." Well, this discussion shouldn't be about Zeitoun's personal notability, but rather about the novel's notability.  I'll tell you what, if someone starts Mary-Lou Zeitoun, and someone else starts Articles for deletion/Mary-Lou Zeitoun I'll look forward to reading your arguments Zeitoun isn't notable there.  I suggest those arguments are off-topic here.
 * If you are arguing the Globe and Mail reference doesn't measure up to the guidelines requirements, can I draw your attention to what WP:Notability_(books) says? It says "The subject of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment."   Well, the Globe and Mail devoted a short paragraph to Zeitoun, and a longer paragraph to the novel.  Is that one paragraph what the notability guideline means by trivial treatment?  Is the coverage of the book a mere entry in a list?  No, it is more than 100 words -- ie not a "passing mention."  Geo Swan (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, hi, not sure what search terms you use and why you had problems searching doing a gsearch for this, with books i enter its name "by" the author "book reviews", ie. for 13: "13 by Mary-Lou Zeitoun book reviews" - page 1 of the gsearch has a Now Toronto (yes a freebie city only paper but still...) review - |"Teen Dream - Most impressive is Zeitoun's ability to paint the reader a full picture of Marnie's world while still giving us a disjointed sense of her disappointment, a remarkably accurate sense of what teen life was like -- so full of piss and vinegar just looking for a pot.",   page 2 of the gsearch has two reviews from Books in Canada - "First Novels - The prose is economical, the language concise, the depictions right on." and "At 134 pages, 13 is a short book and yet, a fully developed novel, with a multi-dimensional plot.", so with the G&M, Q&Q, and these it looks like enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, and heres another one from Exclaim! magazine - "The only flaw is that being set in 1980 and by dwelling on Marnie's Lennon obsession, it's obvious from the beginning that the book's climax will in part be triggered by Lennon's assassination and the death of Marnie's idealism. But Zeitoun successfully avoids melodrama and any trace of sentimentality or nostalgia; her first-person voice is entirely convincing, and despite the novel's obvious time setting it speaks to universal and timeless teen angst.", oops, and i forgot to put in Keep as meeting WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as clearly meeting WP:NBOOK criteria 1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a rule, I'm profoundly unconvinced that any novel's article ever needs to exist before the writer who wrote the novel has an article — there can never be any such thing as a novel that's somehow notable despite being written by an author who isn't, because any notability claim that gets a novel over NBOOK by definition also gets its author over NAUTHOR — but this does plainly have the critical attention needed to stave off deletion, with the nominator's problems caused by searching for the general "13" (in which this would obviously disappear beneath waves of other usages) rather than the more targeted "13 Zeitoun" that would find the right stuff. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.