Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Imaginary Beings


 * 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Book of Imaginary Beings

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page does not currently justify its own existence, with the only sources being the book itself and another primary source that might not actually support the claim, but instead be just another example of myths presented in a natural history fashion. This page needs to be deleted, though I can also understand an argument for blanking and redirecting to the original author. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Mythology,  and Argentina.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am a bit surprised to see this Borges' book nominated: a book which also exists in English translation published in Penguin Classics. For the moment, before checking for further sources, I'll note there is a journal article if anyone has Gale access to review it. AllyD (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a 2012 article in The Guardian about Borges' book: and about a further book inspired by the book in question here: . The original 1969 New York Times review of the English version is also visible to subscribers, partially visible to the rest of us; it is described as "this elegant anthology": . AllyD (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:GNG, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE. GScholar finds multiple articles about this book in scholarly journals. e.g. pburka (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable book by a notable author. Retinalsummer (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1, given the multiple reviews (NYT, Guardian) and journal articles mentioned above. And possibly also meets WP:NBOOK criterion 5. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NBOOK as above, and NB #5, which Borges cannot fail to meet. Ingratis (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- very easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (this is exactly what criterion 5 is designed for). Whether the page "currently justifies its own existence" is a matter of cleanup and a WP:BEFORE search, not notability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Goodness, I was not intending to offend anybody. Based on my preliminary research, I did not see anything notable beyond the scope of the esteemed writer himself. Clearly I missed something, and I will take the time to refresh my knowledge of Wikipedia policy based on the links provided. Thank you. TNstingray (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No offense taken on my part. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets notability guidelines for books. Rustytrombone (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Speedy Keep. I've expanded the article to cover the reviews from The Guardian, New York Times, and Publishers Weekly, making it obviously passing WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria 1, in addition to the tons of scholarly articles which haven't been added yet. Gentle remainder for a WP:BEFORE search- even in the first few pages the Publishers Weekly and The Guardian reviews were already displayed. VickKiang 21:55, 19 September 2022 (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.