Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papers from an unemployed person


 * 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. Unclear why this was relisted twice despite a withdrawn nomination without further delete-!votes in the first place but even with further discussion there is no consensus to delete. Mergers can be discussed at the talk page.  So Why  07:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Papers from an unemployed person

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet any of the five criteria for book notability. Mathglot (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you checked for reviews under the Spanish title Papeles de un cesante? Or considered a merge? The author Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo is very notable, though not so much as a writer. The article here is a direct translation from Spanish Wikipedia, so could do with a rewrite, certainly, but I've a feeling it might be a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The book is about the transition to democracy in post-Franco Spain by ex-P.M. Calvo-Sotelo, clearly a notable topic. But that doesn't make the book notable, which doesn't inherit the notability of the book's chosen subject(s).  Perhaps you're right about a merge.  I haven't checked for reviews, because reviews don't contribute to notability per WP:NBOOK, but news, university courses, conferences, and books about the book do, and I haven't seen anything like that.  One should be clear that mere mentions of the book or references to it in other books don't establish notability, the criterion is about books so significant that other books are written about it, such as Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, or Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Calvo-Sotelo's book is undoubtedly significant in the sense that it talks about an important period in Spanish politics, but that makes that period significant, and if there isn't a WP article about the transition to democracy post-Franco, there ought to be.  But that doesn't make a book about a notable topic notable, otherwise every book written about that topic would be notable, which is clearly not the case. Mathglot (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a drive-by comment, reviews most certainly do contribute to notability (see WP:NBOOK criterion 1). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the drive-by, I did not notice that reviews are included, which surprises me. I don't see the point in nominating any book for deletion in that case, because pretty much everything gets a review these days.  It surprises me, because the other criteria are of such a different level on the scale of notability, whereas this was is an extremely low bar and all out of proportion.  But since that's the case,  and this book clearly has reviews, I see no other choice but to withdraw the nomination.  Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , hello -- this nomination is withdrawn, then? --Lockley (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I guess so. I'm horrified that reviews are apparently an indicator of notability, because that goes against the grain of all the other criteria at WP:NBOOK which all tend to weed out any book except the ones that reach really top rank in some measure (sales, awards, topic of university courses, etc.), but all those criteria are completely undermined by this "two reviews" one, which will admit just about anything in print, including forgettable, ignominious trash.  But that does appear to be what the guideline says, which means there's no point going further with this.  Next step should be, change the guideline; but until that happens, this nomination is a dead letter.  Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment because of the poor way that the article was written I'm having trouble working out if the reviews are "non-trivial" as required by the criteria. can anyone help?Domdeparis (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are these print sources? We can't judge the importance of the sources/reviews without scans. From the way it reads, it looks like the article should be merged to Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo and covered with due weight. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  05:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – XboxGamer 22408 talk 02:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo. He is a notable person, this work appears to be a compilation of his personal papers and is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - firstly, the nomination appears to have been withdrawn, see above. Secondly, this book by a former prime minister of Spain has been reviewed in numerous reliable sources, three of which are cited already in the article. A search using the Spanish title Papeles de un cesante finds that there are others in the literary weekly El Cultural and in En memoria del Presidente Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo. It isn't just a compilation of his papers, but a narrative autobiographical work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2017 (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.