Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Kingdom of Dreams


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A Kingdom of Dreams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not finding significant coverage of the novel in anything but blog posts. Would welcome an attempt to rescue -- but not seeing a good way to do that. Sadads (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Likely Keep: It's almost certain to meet WP:BKCRIT#1. It was apparently a NYT Bestseller, and as a relatively WP:OLDBOOK (1989) that has had at least 30 editions (including many foreign translations), lack of visible RS English-language reviews doesn't mean no RS reviews. Blurb snippets quote Affaire de Coire magazine ("Wonderful!... Judith McNaight is truly the spellbinding storyteller of our times.") as well as something named Rendezvous ("one of the best ever").  Romantic Times gives it 5 stars. Additionally an independent blogpost from a sufficiently notable author or reviewer should still be considered reliable as a source of professional opinion against BKCRIT#1, for instance Sarah MacLean's post.  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  11:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more can be done to establish notablity. If there are sources which show it to be a bestseller, add them.  I don't think WP:OLDBOOK applies to a work as recent as this.  Although this may not strictly be relevant to its notability, the article makes it sound like a load of hokum, it's not clear which English invasion of Scotland it is set during, it can't be set in the Wars of Scottish Independence if King Henry VII of England is a minor character. PatGallacher (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Per PatGallacher, I am not completely convinced of OLDBOOK: 1989 isn't fully in the digital blackhole of internet coverage for sources. I tossed this article out there, because we need the sourcing to be integrated. integrate what you find, and we can see who else scrapes together sourcing. Sadads (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I found the NYT list mention and the RT review would count as usable. This is a good start, but I'd like to see at least 1-2 more sources before this would really be a keep on my end. Redirecting is likely the best outcome here, since that would make it easier to restore if more sources can be found. It seems like there should be more sources out there, but this is never a guarantee, especially as during this time period romances tended to get passed over for review and in-depth coverage because they were seen as "silly" or "frivolous". (This actually still happens nowadays...) As for the blurbs from other places, we'd have to see the review in question to make sure that the review is usable, because sometimes a blurb is just a promotional blurb written specifically for the book jacket. It looks unlikely in this case that it's just a blurb, but we still need to be able to verify this. Now when it comes to author reviews, that's tricky since we need to be able to make sure that there's no connection between the two (ie, friends or they share an agent or publisher). If we can show that there's no strong connection, then I'd consider her a RS in this situation, given the amount of awards and other accolades she's received and that the review is a review and not just a blurb. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * McNaught's publisher for the Westmoreland Saga is Pocket (Simon and Schuster) while MacLean is Avon (HarperCollins). Showing that there's no strong connection is kinda proving a negative, but MacLean also credits McNaught (but not KOD) here, her list of faves are here, and a quick search of their names together doesn't throw up any flags. As an additional source, Romance: The History of a Genre from Dana Percec (a Dean at West University of Timișoara) includes a lot on KOD including (titter ye not) "Table 1-4: Features of the sex scenes in Judith McNaught's A Kingdom of Dreams".  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Two other author sources: Elle Daniels (not NYT bestseller but published by Forever=Hachette), and this interview with NYT bestseller Tanya Anne Crosby who's primarily with Avon (authorsinterviews appears reliable for the purpose). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, Buffalo library lists a short review by the School Library Journal here - - "Judith McNaught, now best known for her soft romantic suspense, created an iconic dynasty in the romance genre. While the Westmore-lands were featured in only three historicals, the family's impact in romance fan circles was huge. Set in the 15th century, Kingdom of Dreams .., the first book in the series, is filled with McNaught's trademark mix of lush romance and horrible conflict." so it may just squeak over (or to be more romantic, soar majestically:)) over the notablitiy line? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources (apart from the two blurbs and the Elle Daniels) have now been integrated by Tokyogirl79 and myself. Character section might be a bit OR. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  13:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep at best as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Issued by major trade publisher, Significant run as an NYT bestseller, review in significant national magazine, discussion in scholarly work. That's enough to demonstrate notability absent a solid refutation. Even relatively recent book reviews are notoriously difficult to track down online, and coverage for most notable books from twenty-five+ years ago is print-only or mostly paywalled or in proprietary databases. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a bestseller, reviewed in RS, NY Times reference, passes WP:GNG and WP:V Atlantic306 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2016 (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.