Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christodora (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Christodora (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Novel which has no strong claim of notability besides the fact that it exists, and no strong reliable sourcing about it to get it over WP:NBOOK. The only references here are the author's own self-published website and his user-generated GoodReads profile, not reliable sources that help to establish notability, and other than stating that it exists and then mini-biographing its writer because he doesn't have a standalone BLP yet, the only other content here is a plot description. Every book that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article, however -- it needs to have a credible claim of notability (such as making a bestseller list and/or winning or getting nominated for a notable literary award), and it needs to be the subject of enough critical attention to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The article itself isn't worth the server space it takes up as things stand, sure. That said, the subject is very much notable per WP:NBOOK criterium #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, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."
 * The book has been reviewed in The Guardian in its 'Book of the Day' series (23 Feb 2017);
 * received a short review in The Guardian's sister-publication The Observer;
 * was reviewed in the Washington Post;
 * was reviewed in the London Review of Books;
 * was reviewed in the Star Tribune;
 * was reviewed in Slate's 'Outward';
 * was reviewed in the Irish Times;
 * was beyond-trivially mentioned in the New York Times in its L.G.B.T. fiction shortlist;
 * and was reviewed in French-language Canadian weekly newspaper Voir.
 * (There's quite possibly more. This is the point where I stopped looking). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment (above editor beat me to it, so there will be repeats), doo, doo, doo, i wonder if there are any reviews of this book, ie. The Washington Post - "If the novel's first hundred pages are disorientating and occasionally plodding, the last hundred have a rare narrative sweep and force. The broad strokes and bald statements don't recede, exactly, but they're like the manipulations of a Puccini opera, so skillful that it seems churlish to object.", London Review of Books - "Tim Murphy has written a generational family saga, but in the hope of writing something else.", Slate - "His (Murphy) prose has an easy, fluent style with plentiful references to popular music (Madonna, Leonard Cohen, Lupe Fiasco), historical figures (Ed Koch, Marina Abramovic), and notable places (including in Los Angeles, where some of his scenes are set). He’s good at building scenes into dramatic, sometimes scary climaxes.", The New York Times - "The book, a sprawling social novel in the Tom Wolfe tradition..." (snip), Newsday - "It’s an exciting read, sometimes a little confusing, but ultimately all the pieces fit together; the reader’s patience is rewarded.", The Guardian - "What makes this novel remarkable, though, is the way it captures the full arc of Aids in New York, a subject Murphy has long covered as a reporter.", and "For fans of Bonfire of the Vanities or, more recently, Garth Risk Hallberg’s City on Fire, this novel is your next must-read.", The Irish Times - "Murphy pulls off a neat trick of placing two non-humans at the heart of the novel and bringing them entirely to life. One is the building itself which, often through the presence of the doorman Ardit, seems to silently judge its residents as they pass through the lobby. The other is a disease: Aids.", to just name a few, in additino to some "tradies" eg. Kirkus Reviews - "An ambitious social novel informed by an extended perspective on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, from the early 1980s to the near future.", Publishers Weekly - "Skipping back and forth in time over 40 years, and projecting itself into the near future, the novel achieves a powerful evocation of the plague years.", Booklist (starred review) - "His multigenerational tale is a clever inversion of the usual addiction-begets-AIDS narrative and a reminder that despite recent medical advances, the disease still finds ways to ravage people's lives.", no wonder WorldCat lists 650 library holdings from both sides of the pond and the ditch down under, so a keep as meeting WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. ps. i think a forecast of snow is appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable per AddWittyNameHere and Coolabahapple. Satisfies GNG. An early close is in order. James500 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment:, per the above sources, any chance you would be willing to withdraw your nomination? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep more than sufficient reviews to meet WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Coolabahapple. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 14 June 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.