Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drückender Tango


 * 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.

Result was keep. Consensus that the book meets NBOOK. Nomination and delete !vote do not suggest to the contrary.Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Drückender Tango

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, below), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id


 * Response. It would help to actually review WP:NOTINHERITED rather than mechanically invoking it. It's part of an essay, and can't be used to counter an SNG, like NBOOK #5, or the GNG. More important, it recognizes quite clearly that notability is generally shared between creators and their creative works, making express and unmistakeable exceptions for books, films, and music. And "prove it's notable" is not a valid argument in an AFD discussion claiming lack of notability, where the burden of proof is on the advocates of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I believe Toshio Yamaguchi deserves an apology for the besmirchment implied on his good faith for these nominations. His nominations here and at the other single-line, unsourced stubs, are completely valid. No sourcing, no article has been standard consensus at Wikipedia for as long as I've been here. There is no reason for an exception here. Redirecting the article, or deleting it outright would result in the loss of no information as long as it is mentioned on the author's article. Real, sourced articles containing real information are deleted daily here without accusations of bad faith. My personal philosophy is that Wikipedia should have such articles, but consensus has spoken loudly, clearly and consistently that it shouldn't. The very existence of the GNG proves the validity of this nomination. There are other projects at which this article would be welcome before it is substantial enough for Wikipedia. Consider this !vote to apply to the other nominations, if they are all as skimpy as this article. Dekkappai (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2011 (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.