Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Can Now be Told


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Dadasare Abdullahi. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It Can Now be Told

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Given the current sourcing, the book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. At present, the article cites only one source independent of the subject. I have searched for additional sources but cannot find any. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete at the moment. I too could find no secondary sources to meet WP:NBOOK, and the autobiography appears to have not won any major awards, nor is the author outstandingly significant historically enough for their books to generally be considered notable.
 * The Night Watch    (talk)   17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The books attains WP: Creative and the third and fifth guideline of WP: NBOOK stating; "..The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Apart from being an editor of Gaskiya Ta Fi Kwabo, that should be the main work of Dadasare Abdullahi.

Another guideline states; "...The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." That is to address what Dadasare Abdullahi had undergone. In summary, the book as an autobiography passes WP: NBOOK and WP: CREATIVE for the author. Best, Mastashat (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:CREATIVE is part of the subject-specific notability guidelines that applies to articles about people, not books, so that would be inapplicable here. The fifth NBOOK criteria is meant to apply to exceptional authors with great historical significance, and who are subject to great academic attention regarding their life, career, and bibliography. That would typically apply to highly influential names like J. R. R. Tolkien, Rabindranath Tagore, Maya Angelou, Ursula K. Le Guin, and others. Unless there is evidence that Dadasare Abdullahi has been subject to significant critical attention and her bibliography and life are heavily studied by academics, I do not see a reason why criteria 5 would apply here. I also don't see why this book has contributed to a religious/political movement, art form, or motion picture when I could hardly find any secondary sources that provided significant coverage of the book, much less reliable ones.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge with Dadasare Abdullahi: rather than debate the questionable notability of the book, we can simply add this one-sentence stub to the well-sourced article about the author/subject. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean redirect because all pertinent information is already in the author's article.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't verify that the three references are included in the target, but if they are - sure, Redirect is the way to go. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nigeria.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dadasare Abdullahi: I saw a review at AJOL but that only does not establish notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect – the book is mentioned in the article but is unsourced. Just consider importing those sources to the article, as the nominated article has no hope of expansion given no relevant sources on Google. Toadette  (Happy holiday!) 10:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dadasare Abdullahi: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NBOOK. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (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.