Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Dolls


 * 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. John254 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The House of Dolls

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The novel doesnt meet the notability criteria for an entry. Not mentioning the dubious content. see: Notability (books) Tresckow 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per notability concerns expressed by nom; note that "dubious content" is not a legitimate reason for nomination. Otto4711 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia isn't a place to judge content. The fact the book carries and ISBN and the author appears to have notability - with sources cited - is good enough. Please note that Notability (books) is only a proposed policy/guideline and this should not be used to gauge whether an article should exist on a particular novel. Personally I follow earlier guidelines that basically say anything that isn't vanity press and had any sort of distribution is notable. I'm willing to change my vote if proof can be provided that this book never existed. 23skidoo 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that citing the proposed guideline is fine, to the extent that the community agrees with it, but suppose that while it's merely "proposed," the debate here may help show the extent to which the community agrees.  In addition, the book is notable under the proposed guideline - it is relatively well known, and it is fairly trivial to find references to it.  I will add a couple and update. TheronJ 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. 61 results on Google Books, a few on Google Scholar as well, so it would actually pass the cited guideline. (That said, I think that "would fail proposed guideline X" is a perfectly valid argument). --Dhartung | Talk 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This needs to be tagged for cleanup and as unsourced, not deleted. -- Antepenultimate 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added a couple references, which should be enough to bring this article verifiably within the scope of Notability (books). It still needs cleanup, of course.  TheronJ 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've attempted to clean up the page slightly by adding an "Allusions/references to history" section, since it was confusing what parts were about the novel and what parts were about the novel's historical background. Hope this helps. -- Antepenultimate 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whilst the article could obviously do with some work, it seems notable enough to be kept, particularly in light of the references added recently by TheronJ. Silverthorn 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. Work to improve - prompt for additional citations and referencing - don't blow people's hard work away all the time! Really! Notability (books) should not be used as a stick to force things out, only a way of ensuring we clearly know what should be in. And it isn't agreed yet! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep except the Joy Division reference should appear somewhere else than in the "Trivia" section. It's most likely behind 95% of the lookups for this article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there does need to be a synopsis at the top of the article. So tagged for cleanup. SkierRMH 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is important for the relationship to the band Joy Division, as it is where the name of the band came from.  Although, I would have thought the holocaust / death-camp relationship was interesting enough in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaffieneNZ (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Wikipedia isn't a place to judge content. If it is true it should be here. Qqzzccdd 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 16:32, 13 January 2007 (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.