Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Este sau nu este Ion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable book by Herta Müller. Only one line, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC) we all know who used to burn books before, and this is not Fahrenheint whatever the movies was called. I vote to retain. If she has another page link to it. Nobel prize winner is, per se, notable. Thank you Pvujin (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks as though a stream of AfD nominations for Müller's books are being created here. She won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Literature for her writings, so my view is that the presumption should be that her books are inherently notable and the articles should be kept (and of course expanded) rather than deleted. (This view applies equally to the further nominations which are being separately created below.)AllyD (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has not been flagged as per AfD step 1. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please show me the the policy which states that a work is notable only because its author has received a price. This article contains no encyclopedic information and does not have a single source. I don't see a reason why this should be kept as a seperate article. Currently there is not the slightest sign in the form of third party sources that this work is notable. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:45, 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) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep to all of these. The books are prima facie notable and at minimum the titles are legitimate search terms.  If the interested editors come to the conclusion, as an editorial matter, that some of these books should be covered at the author's bio page, a merge/redirect could be a legitimate editorial decision, but it wouldn't be a matter for AfD.  I am not sure that WP:Speedy keep can be invoked here but in any case I feel a distinct touch of WP:SNOW in the air. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 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) 06:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 12:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Not the first time I have seen the burden of proof mistaken. This and other such erros occur because editors fail to notice the difference between inclusion of content and deletion of subject. Stick to the rules in WP:DEL, delete voters. Anarchangel (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. 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 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 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.