Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrealist Women


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Surrealist Women

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources or notability. hard to take seriously when there's nothing to it. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The only things I can find are book-selling websites. Fails WP:GNG. William2001(talk) 21:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, surprised at the lack of sources discussing/reviewing this book given the number of libraries (around 900) that hold it. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick search shows reviews in Library Journal, Women's Studies, Journal of Gender Studies, New Left Review and The Art Book. I will try to add info and evaluation from reviews to this sub-stub. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't bother with Library Journal, which, like Kirkus Reviews, essentially reviews almost everything, so their review does not show notability.  The others -- if they are peer-reviewed -- should be good, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Library Journal, Kirkus, and other similar "trade" book review journals/magazines are not precluded from WP:NBOOK (unless a footnote has been snuck in recently:)), (although there is some disquiet amongst editors about kirkus (and PW(?) willing to accept payments for reviews relatively recently?), so they can be used, that said, a book that has only 2 of these sort of reviews and nothing else may be a bit shaky.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added six reviews as sources, and used information and assessments from the reviews to summarise the content and impact of the anthology. The book definitely meets WP:NBOOK #1, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment to the Nominator, Beyond My Ken: please do not remove sources just because you cannot find them, or consider that they do not add to notability. Library Journal is not a banned source, and other editors can assess its usefulness or otherwise in contributing to notability. Please WP:AGF with regard to The Art Book. I assume that your edit summary "not found" means that you could not find the source, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS, " If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, a review in LJ does not confer notability; at best it verifies that the book was published. A refernce which cannot be verified should be removed from the article it appears in.  It's not an access problem, I got a "404" error.  Perhaps your URL is incorrect? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A reference which cannot be verified by someone, not necessarily the AfD nominator. I could remove all the urls, and the references would be just as valid. I have just done that - any editor who has access to Ebsco or Jstor or similar databases can use the journal titles, volume, issue and page numbers to locate the reviews. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF. I did not make them up. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please point me to a policy which directs that a person who nominates an article for deletion cannot subsequently edit it? Or, more speciically, remove sources which cannot be verified? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, you seem to be impugning in some of your comments that I hold an animus against this book - I do not. I nominated it for deletion along with other articles which were created by a now-banned editor.  All the articles were unreferenced or severely under-referenced, and appeared to me to be non-notable because of it.  It looks as if your research has shown this particular article to be notable per NBOOK, and that's fine with me - part of the reason for AfD is to provoke people to research something that was not properly referenced in the first place.  I am happy to be shown that I was apparently wrong in this nomination, so I  formally withdraw it .  That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether particular references are valid or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You linked to verified, which as I pointed out above, in the section WP:SOURCEACCESS says, "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." It was not apparent to me that you had asked anyone else to access the source you removed, a source which gave volume, issue and page numbers, as well as the title and author of the particular article. Particularly during an AfD discussion, it does not seem helpful for anyone to remove a reference which other editors may not have the same difficulty accessing as you had, or which could be supplied on request, and which may help them to assess the notability of the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, has been reviewed in various sources, article has been updated to reflect this (thanks to ). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this article passes WP:NBOOK. Good work by the participants and Rebecca GreenLightburst (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kudos to for the impressive improvements to this article. I believe it passes WP:NBOOK and WP:N and should not be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 04:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agreed...thanks to the improvements to this article we now have a consensus that we should keep Surrealist Women - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.