Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Lonesome: New & Selected Stories, 1966–2006


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

High Lonesome: New & Selected Stories, 1966–2006

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, notability not established for over 5 years.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK. First of all, I found about 50 reviews of this book in Newsbank, which satisfies clause 1 of the notability guideline: The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Second, certainly satisfies clause 5 as well: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.  Oates's work is the subject of intense academic study.  See here:, , , .  These are just from the first 25 out of over 1200 hits on JSTOR.  Third, the nominator does not give any valid reasons for deletion, which is decided based on which sources exist, not on whether there are any in the article.  Notability does not need to be "established" in an article, it needs to be discovered based on a search for sources.  See WP:BEFORE for details.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:20, 3 March 2014 (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.