Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon and the Oaks


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Simon and the Oaks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is the article on the book. The movie was hugely successful being nominated for multiple Swedish Oscars. But problems plauging the article on the book is no plot and lacks sources. For seven years, it has been tagged with expansion from the Swedish article. I don't know if it has been brought to the appropriate WikiPojects to get looked at. With the state the article is in, it doesn't merit being kept. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or at least Redirect for now, because it's held at 600 libraries worldwide and it was a film, so that's enough to suggest enough for an article alone. SwisterTwister   talk  02:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as "3.The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture," plus its a bestseller, here is a LA Times article on the film that states "the source material is a bestselling novel, in this case one by Marianne Fredricksson that has been translated into 25 languages and sold more than 4 million copies worldwide." - Review: 'Simon and the Oaks' an emotional wartime journey, also nom needs to remember Article content does not determine notability Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The poor state of an article does not mean that it should be deleted. It just means that it needs to be improved. It's fine if you don't want to do this, but this doesn't mean that you should delete the article. Redirection would also not be appropriate here, as the article does pass notability guidelines since the film is notable and per Coolabahapple, there are reviews for it. In cases like this the best course of action is to go to some of the various, applicable WikiProjects (WP:BOOKS, WP:SWEDEN) and ask for someone to improve the article. An article can be a stub and still be a valid article, especially if there's room for it to grow.
 * I don't mean this to sound harsh, it's just that deletion shouldn't be automatically judged based on the stubby state of an article or even if the article seems to be lacking in details. This tends to happen a lot and I mean a lot with articles where the topic is predominantly covered in another language. Captain Sabertooth and Kule kidz gråter ikke both nearly got deleted because their articles were fairly sparse, although the arguments there were notability rather that on the state of the article alone. Even so, it's just really a bad thing to get in the habit of doing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't take an AfD for an article to get some improvement. That's one problem with Wikipedia.  If I was just strictly a reader of Wikipedia and I wanted to know more about this particular book, I'd get nothing from it.  If one is going to create and article, you should at least put a synopsis in it.  That is a no-brainer.  I used to be like you and think the nominator should have done something to improve the article.  But that's not the case.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - since the nomination the article has been improved (thank you, Tokyogirl79! :-) ) and notability per WP:NBOOKS is shown. I started looking for other sources, and will try to add more information and sources to the article. It is not trivially easy to find such sources, because although it was very much talked about when it was published in 1985 (this review of the film in Dagens Nyheter refers to the book as "the major bestseller of the 1980s" - possibly an exaggeration, but it was certainly a very popular book), much of what was written in '85 in the papers is not available online, and since the film had the same title, searches mostly find movie reviews. Such reviews often mention the book, but I will try a bit harder to see if I can't find some reliable sources that discuss the book itself. In the meantime, keep. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 3 October 2016 (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.