Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel and Apostle


 * 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   no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular action has emerged regarding the article. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Angel and Apostle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't find any professional reviews for this book, so I'm not convinced it meets WP:NBOOK. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The author doesn't currently have an article but she is probably notable, based on the entry in Contemporary Authors that indicates she's won multiple awards for some of her other books.   As far as this is one concerned, I found reviews in Publishers Weekly, the Chicago Tribune (from the Baltimore Sun) , Booklist (paywalled) , and Library Journal (starred review) , and a substantive interview in the Portland Press Herald .  I'd prefer to see an article about the author that includes coverage of this book as well as the others, but I can't say it's non-notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, does appear to be popular but reviews may not be WP:SCHOLARSHIP or WP:RELIABLE eg.


 * Move to Deborah Noyes, who is notable, From WorldCat, she is notable as an author and editor. she has edited two very widely used anthologies, each with thousands of library holdings; she has written a variety of non fiction found in many hundreds of libraries; she has also written an other work like this, based on an Edith Wharton novel--both that and this are in over 600 libraries. Current fiction aimed at young people can best be judged by library holdings: libraries buy what is reviewed and what is asked for. this particular article is an example of the rather low quality book reviews we get at wikipedia, emphasizing non-encyclopedic  plot details, but the notability of the work cannot be presumed from the inadequacy of the article.  If this were the only work, I'd say to delete, but when there are multiple other works, combining them in an author article is a helpful way of handling them.  DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  this particular article is an example of the rather low quality book reviews we get at wikipedia, emphasizing non-encyclopedic plot details – there is some commentary in the book reviews. Example from Publishers Weekly: "While Hawthorne's Pearl serves his novel primarily as a symbol of innocence, provoking contemplation of morality and social organization in his adult characters, Noyes, a young adult writer with a penchant for the historical and gothic (Gothic!: Ten Original Dark Tales ), writes a Pearl of flesh and wit, who both dotes upon her stoic mother and despises her for their status as pariahs. ... Noyes engages with atmospheric charms of time and place, and though the major turns of the novel are predictable, she delivers an ending revelation that would surprise Hawthorne himself." And the Chicago Tribune: "There are some flaws in Noyes' re-creation of Hawthorne's characters, notably Pearl's too-adult persona when she is still quite a child. And one does miss the defiant Hester of Hawthorne's invective. Nevertheless, Noyes, a young-adult writer in her first foray into the grown-up novel, achieves a creditable and credible sequel that does no disservice to Hawthorne and whose deft telling provides a thoroughly engaging story with an utterly stunning ending that affords the reader much to ponder." Cunard (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, oppose merge or move per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Arxiloxos' excellent research. The reviews from Publishers Weekly, the Chicago Tribune (from the Baltimore Sun), Booklist, and Library Journal demonstrate that the book is independently notable of its author Deborah Noyes, so I oppose a merge or move. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Angel and Apostle to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The book passes Notability (books), which says: "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. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. ..." Cunard (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:08, 20 March 2015 (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.