Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongo Béti ou l’écriture d’un révolté en exile: anatomie, analyse et impact de ses critiques à travers ses articles dans « Peuples noirs, peuples africains » (1978 à 1991)


 * 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 delete. The notability problems aren't really being addressed by those advocating retention.  Sandstein  15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mongo Béti ou l’écriture d’un révolté en exile: anatomie, analyse et impact de ses critiques à travers ses articles dans « Peuples noirs, peuples africains » (1978 à 1991)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried proposed deletion Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea how the AFD become messed up but I think I've fixed it ? ... I have no idea . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely because of the extreme length of the page name and the funny characters in it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to wonder if it's the longest title here - Certainly looks it! :) – Davey 2010 Talk 07:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete While the human rights significance of the content of this dissertation, which Nolanpowers has stressed, is undeniable, I haven't found it to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As I discussed with him, what little substantial discussion I've found on the dissertation or on its author have been routine coverage in publications at his own university. This is not to say that if this work's reputation isn't making its way around, but if it does so sufficiently to support notability at some future date, then it will be time to have an article. Also, it's important to bring up WP:NOTINHERITED at this point. If an author is notable, it doesn't mean that any of his books are individually notable as would be required to have a separate article for each of them. And technically, the notability of a book doesn't confer notability on the author, although it would be unusual for a book to achieve notability without the author doing so concurrently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment(going on a sidetrack:)) WP:NOTINHERITED does not necessarily apply to some author's works. Point 5 of WP:NBOOK reads "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is 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." Of course debate may arise as to which authors this would apply. ie. would a scribbled note written by Salmon Rushdie warrant an article? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding a comment that the article creator put on the article's talk page:


 * —me_and 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true, the paragraph you placed here has the word "notable" five times. Unfortunately, it does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the work, taking into account what the word "notable" means on Wikipedia, which is unfortunately not its ordinary meaning in English. In most cases, notability here means something to the effect of "has achieved note", as demonstrated through outside, independent reliable sources. It isn't based on our own assessment, or the assessment of an article's creator, that the topic is worthy of note. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, since I'm not entirely sure whether you're addressing me or : I'm pasting this here as a courtesy to Nolanpowers, since it's evident they intended it to be a comment on the deletion discussion. In no way should that be taken as me supporting or agreeing with their comment. Only reason I'm not adding a !vote supporting deletion myself is your comment at the top of the discussion covers everything I'd want to say anyway. —me_and 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably delete or gracious 'move to draft' Creating editor here, thanks to for bringing my noob attempts to contest this as notable to the rightplace... I have only been here a little over a week, and while I hate to face it, I don't think this article is currently suitable for Wiki, it has only been mentioned in 2 academic studies, and both were conducted at the same university, so there are simply not enough resources at the time... This work does not merit it's own article. I hope I won't be frowned upon at this point for mentioning the author Kodjo Adabra,  however his biographical article is not yet judged as either notable or not, and I would appreciate if this could be kept at least as draft (or something else) until then.  Nolanpowers (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy (move to user's sandbox). Do not delete or we would have trouble re-creating it. The instructions for doing so are quite muddy, but if anybody knows how to do it, that would be a solution here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this would be difficult to recreate? Which instructions are muddy? I'm pretty familiar with the processes here, so if I can clear things up I'd be glad to. And if there's something that could be clarified in Wikipedia's processes, we should look at doing that too. —me_and 09:40, 30 April 2015 (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.