Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paul's Rock


 * 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. Consensus clearly demonstrates that this article's subject is notable. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  21:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk)  (contribs)  21:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

John Paul's Rock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK; there is very slight independent coverage of the book. Redirect to author (Frank Parker Day) seems indicated. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete This paper shows that the subject is of at least minor historical interest as an attempted retelling of Mi'kmaw folklore through a colonialist Canadian lens, but that alone falls short of notability guidelines. signed,Rosguill talk 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * keep This book and it's author has been feature in many articles and won many awards. This book, features many historical Nova Scotia landmarks, people and it's stories. This book is still talked about in liturary circles and is the subject of many local debates, which are features in many online articles and offline newspaper publications in the Maritimes. This book is described as a lost classic during the dirty 30's, and would have been a best selling author if he was published in a different time. I feel that the page needs to be updated further. But meets the notoriety for a book that isn't spoken about much online, but is still feature in modern university research papers almost 100 years after the fact.


 * Why this book meets the criteria: - The book is and has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, universities and post-graduate programs in Canada. The book's author is so historically significant with two of the author's written books have been considered notable. Snowy Badger (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please provied a few references for these 100+ research papers? I'm not seeing them. Same goes for evidence of this particular title being taught at schools or univesrities. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this book they profile his work and talk about the university's that have studied this book and his other works. I think McGill university has been the major contrubuter to his work being republished and used in education. Snowy Badger (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. Significant coverage in GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere. Book review in the New York Times on 27 March 1932, according to the index: . I suspect there are several newspaper book reviews here: . Even one will pass criteria 1 of NBOOK when added to the NYT review. Even if this book was not notable, deletion would still violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the page could be merged/redirected to the author Frank Parker Day. James500 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll grant that this novel isn't as famous as Rockbound today, but there are sources to improve it with — in addition to those that have already been pointed out, I was also quite easily able to find a book review in The Globe and Mail on a ProQuest search. It also certainly has reviews in Atlantic Canadian newspapers, because Frank Parker Day was a very big deal in Atlantic Canada in his time, but I don't personally have access to the archiving databases for Atlantic Canadian media coverage prior to 1981, so I'm not the guy who can find them. And since many of the links in James500's newspapers.com search are indeed dated 1932, he's almost certainly correct in his assessment that some of them are notability-supporting reviews — now that almost everything on newspapers.com is behind the "publisher extra" paywall even for those of us who had Wikipedia Library access, I'm not the guy who can retrieve those either, but somebody surely can. For a book published in 1932, the best sources would not be expected to show up in a simple Google search — but Wikipedia does not require our sources to necessarily be online, so archived older media coverage and critical analysis in non-fiction books are still perfectly acceptable. I've already removed the bad sources, while adding the G&M review as a starter toward the correct kind — but yes, the article and its sourcing are improvable. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2018 (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.