Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driving to Geronimo's Grave and Other Stories


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Driving to Geronimo's Grave and Other Stories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lonsdale is of course notable. Some of his novels are. Possibly some individual short stories are. But not this particular collection of works, all of which are adequately covered in Joe E. Lonsdale Bibliography--and so is this collection itself.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, article has now been improved with multiple reviews cited (some are "trade" reviews but are okay for notability). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * there still is not enough for notability of a specific collection. The reviews are pure routine. The analogy here is the notability of a mixtape. The repackaging of previously published material does not make for separate notability .  DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder. "Lansdale brings his East Texas noir style to another dynamite collection of short stories that show off his humor, his range, and his creativity. Although some of these tropes will be familiar to longtime Lansdale readers, every story still feels electric and fresh, bringing something new to the table. And getting Lansdale’s insights into each story after reading it is just icing on the cake. This is marvelous stuff all around." --- doesn't sound like "pure routine" to me. San Francisco Book Review, a proper review conducted with attention and respect. BTW it's Joe R. Lansdale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the stories  that   may even be individually notable. They have all been published previously. This is just a reprinted collection of them.   Are you saying that Lonsdales's individual comments about his own stories are separately notable, for each group of stories that gets reprinted?  DGG ( talk )

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - This is a limited run collection and really shouldn't have its own page. The reviews are all perfunctory, and that's not an inherently bad thing — after all, these stories have all been published already. Why would there be a serious review. Given the small print run, it's not like it would really be worth the effort. The verbiage from the SFBR 'review' could be applied to any similar collection. I don't believe anyone read the book (which would apply to any of the several reviews I read). Even had the site done so, I don't see how it would be considered a reliable source given their stated purpose (reviews in bulk). As an aside, on the bibliography page, shouldn't it be characterised as a collection of shorts rather than novellas? ogenstein (talk) 20:32, 3 June 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.