Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An English Murder


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

An English Murder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable book. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or any of the subject-specific guidelines. A loose necktie (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Have you read it? Anyway, this is just your opinion. The political and social context of post-war Europe and in particularly Great Britain as shown in the novel, is quite nuanced. Mikus (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And that is just your opinion. Decisions about whether to have a Wikipedia article are made on the basis of coverage in independent reliable sources, not personal opinions of editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify: there appears to be insufficient coverage of this subject in published reliable independent secondary sources to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article. A Google search shows the expected Amazon.com results as well as a number of reviews in blogs, and there are instances like this one which is a review on a more formal edited website, but even in this case the review was submitted by a freelance writer, not a trained book reviewer.  This very brief review by Kirkus Reviews describes it as "satisfactory".  Doesn't look like it meets any of the criteria outlined at WP:NBOOK.  A loose necktie (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added some sources to the article since you nominated it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the brief kirkus review was probably made when the book was originally published in 1951, a lot of reviews by kirkus and their contemporaries at that time were succinct. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It didn't seem worth keeping before, but it does now that the context has been fleshed out and the article much extended, I think.  RobinCarmody (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, has more than two reviews, article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, and the current incarnation of the article now reflects this. Onel 5969  TT me 12:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep here comes the WP:SNOW. meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (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.