Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas (book)


 * 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. I am not relisting because Blackbirdz's recommendation has stayed for 5 days without a change from the original "keep" !voters, so a relist is unlikely to help. There will be no prejudice against merging to the author's article, provided that there is sufficient consensus to do so at the article's talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Salvation, Texas (book)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I created this article from material that had been inserted in an article about a completely different topic, Salvation, Texas. However, this is a book by an author who lacks a WP article herself, and one blog review and a couple of user-submitted reviews do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BK. The material should be deleted as nonnotable. Deor (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as acceptable split for positively reviewed book concerning titular setting in actually two different Romance novels. Support creating article about author as well, as author has written multiple books for which additional reviews exist.  Thus, at worst we would merge and redirect to an article on the author per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, as deletion is an extreme last resort and in this case, we know it i not libelous or a hoax and that not all other possibilities have been considered.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The only reason this author doesn't have an article yet, is that most people that read Romances novels don't edit the wikipedia. We need to check places that actually review romance novels, since most don't take them seriously or bother with them, to find mention of her and her books.   D r e a m Focus  17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a citation. Seems notable enough for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets book criteria for notability PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is a notable article as stated above. Don't see any reason to delete whatsoever. Airplaneman  talk 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Reader reviews do not make a book notable. There is a reliable source for reviews of this genre, which is LibraryJournal, which regularly features them. I haven't checked for this author though. DGG (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BK 1) Article's sources are blogs, rather than multiple significant reliable sources, 2) Lists no major literary awards, 3) has not made a significant contribution to a film or political movement etc. 4) No sign that it is the topic of instruction at educational institutions, and 5) No sign this author is of major histrorical significance. Exhaustive search of my library and its databases shows no sign that this book meets WP:BK, and while I see the claim above that this does meet WP:BK, I see no explanation of how. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how any book from a romance publisher is going to be notable enough to pass muster around here. Hairhorn (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * there are several hundred that are, see Category:Romance novels--and this is really IDONTLIKEIT as applied to an entire genre. I despise soap operas, but i don't try to say the entire body of articles on them should be removed--though it would admittedly solve some problems :) DGG (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. That the award-winning author does not yet have an article is a reason to write one... but not a valid reason to otherwise deny the notability of the author or the author's work. That the author and book can meet WP:GNG is enough to allow both the article and the project to be improved through normal editing. A sampling of sources (Not blogs) addressing the work or the author: Abilene Reporter-News, The Eagle, RT Book Reviews, Dallas News, Dallas Morning News, Library Journal, Beaumont Enterprise. AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your sources prove notability for the author, not the novel - and in fact more than half the sources don't even mention the novel in question. Alan16 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is probably enough reason to try an article on the author. DGG (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An article on the author appears worthwhile. While MichaelQSchmidt suggests this book itself meets WP:GNG, he however does not provide evidence that this book has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So, I'll redirect to the author if no one objects. Blackbirdz (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks notable and verifiable to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I would tend to merge borderline notable books into their author's article, but as this doesn't have such a target, it should be kept. Yob  Mod  09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does have such a target -- Jeffrey McClanahan -- which is what I was referring to in my comment above yours. So, yeah, let's redirect this to the author article. Blackbirdz (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. This novel does not seem notable in itself. The author probably is - the phrase "award wining" seems to be bandied about a lot - so what really needs done is to create an article for her and merge this there. That makes this difficult at the moment. The options are to delete, or move to somebodies user space until an article is created. Alan16 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (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.