Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memoirs of a Russian princess


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Memoirs of a Russian princess

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. red dog six (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I wish I could find more, but if there are sources then they're probably not on the Internet. I can see where it's in some college libraries, but not many and I don't see where it's really part of many college courses. I did find mention of it in a few scholarly texts, but mostly in passing. The lengthiest mention I added to the article, but even then it's more of a trivial mention than anything else. The best source is the one from Página/12, but we'd need at least 1-2 more to really establish notability here. If anyone wants to userfy this I have no issue with that. Does anyone know if the author the book is attributed to is especially notable? Maybe an article can be created for him and redirected there? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Even if the book existed, arguendo, it is mistitled; there was no such thing as a "princess" in Czarist Russia - they were called grand duchesses. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't delete an article on a novel because its title is factually inaccurate. There was no Catch-22 in American military regulations, should we delete that as well? Other reasons for deletion may apply. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an erotic classic of sorts. First, the worldcat references  show the book existed and still exists--it was republished by Grove Press in 1967.  Second, this is fiction -- erotic fiction, with not only little required  connection to reality, but with the expectation of a considerable amount of unreality to enhance the fantasy; whether the title of the book corresponds to the facts of history is totally besides the point .  Third, the author is a pseudonym, as shown by the British National Bibliography entry for the original 1890 publication  as was customary for books of this nature--I would be remarkably surprised if anyone in 1890  had put their real name to work of this wort. Fourth, and the reason I'm calling it a classic, is that it also exists in French   Spanish, Japanese, & Dutch,   Fifth, and the evidence it is a classic, is that it is included in an anthology . (The Grove Press reprinting also shows this--this was one of their specialties) I've updated the article to reflect all this. Not meant personally,  but the doubts of the  previous two eds, both my good friends here, show them a little unfamiliar with this 18th-mid20th century genre.   DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Changing vote to "keep" per DGG's argument. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing objection. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2013 (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.