Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈  12:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stub, with refimprove tag from 2012 -- no improvements have been made since K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  09:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- notability is not determined by what is on Wikipedia (after all, Wikipedia is a Work in Progress), but on whether or not coverage exists external to Wikipedia. Can you provide rationale which points to why its not WP:Notable? Sadads (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment, found this short but useable (for notability) review from Kirkus - "To retell the epic of Stalingrad is to enter a tough competition and invite many comparisons. Craig's narrative falls into that military genre which charges each moment with dramatic significance;" and "In short: a fine history of the battle among many previous fine histories."; just need another one (or two?:)) for it to remain, otherwise redirect to movie Enemy at the Gates, with possibly a section on the book? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't work a lot in this area but I thought I recalled seeing that a Kirkus review was useful for WP:V. but not for WP:N? Can anyone confirm or disconfirm? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I've heard as well. is more of an expert on this than I am. I know that I stopped using them after they started selling reviews. They're marked, but that still works against them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a great article, but I think any book that a major film was based on is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets the criterion for book, because a film was made of it. Anyway, the book in in over 1700 worldcat libraries, which is an enormous number for non-fiction. They will be sure to be other reviews.   DGG ( talk ) 14:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is all convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  22:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The movie isn't based on the book - they took its title and used it as one of the sources, but not the source and reports on how much they took from Craig's book specifically varies. (This NYT article just mentions it as an inspiration, for example.) That said, I did find two reviews for the book in my school's database and the impression I got from these sources was that there were other reviews out there, they just aren't on the Internet for whatever reason. The Washington Post did mention the book again here, where they comment on the book's popularity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The film will presumably be based on history, with this and other books on the siege as sources, choosing to adopt its title. I am dubious as to its merits as an independent article.
 * Delete -- as the original nominator. The author wrote three books, this one can be adequately covered on the author's page William Craig (author). With the comment above that the movie is not based on the book, I think the case for deletion and merging the existing content onto the author's page is stronger. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- strike deletion. Tokyogirl79 has done nice work on the article, so it's in much better shape now. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (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.