Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right to Write


 * 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) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 01:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Right to Write

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non notable book. Tagged as an advert since 2010. Created by a single purpose account with likely conflict of interest. The book exists but I can't find any substantial reviews of it, just a paragraph here or there from the online booksellers. The refs in the article are primary. Desertarun (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I now prefer keep based upon the refs identified below. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. It has 323 reviews at Amazon.com, so clearly there is some interest in it.  Athel cb (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge I feel somewhat confident that sources exist. But if good faith belief isn’t enough then merging is a healthy compromise. She is a highly notable author in this space and this book paved the way for bigger successes around the same subject matter. There is content to preserve at least in her author page. Archrogue (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Julia Cameron. Most of what I've found about this discuss it in relation to the author and her creative writing process, rather than of the book itself. I think that this would be best covered in a section in the main article, as it doesn't seem to have received enough coverage to really argue for its own article but is mentioned enough (even if in passing) to where a section devoted to the book would be good to have. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book review notes: "Julia Cameron's new book on writing, The Right to Write, is a writer's midnight-helping of macaroni and cheese; an insightful walk through southwestern sagebrush; a friend's voice in the middle of the night calling: Don't give up. ... Not since Natalie Goldberg's Writing Down the Bones has such a helpful book on writing been written. The Right to Write is manna for the struggling or just-beginning or would-have-been writer; for anyone who has ever wanted to write but didn't."  The book review notes: "So goes the belief that anyone can write because it's easy, yet in 'The Right to Write' (Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, $19.95), Julia Cameron wants to convince the reader that's exactly the case. She may even scold the writer for discouraging the surgeon. ... Each of the 43 segments in the book begins with an invitation to write, followed by encouragement to do so. The invitation tries to debunk what Cameron calls myths about writing."  The book review notes: "Although she covers much of the same territory she explored in The Artist's Way, Cameron's prose and anecdotes sparkle with fresh, lived experience, demonstrating that when the subject is creativity, a writer really can't enter the same stream twice."  The book review notes: "An inspirational read even for people who may not want to write as an occupation; recommended for public and academic libraries."  The audiobook review notes: "Cameron's own writing, however, is too precious for anybody but the most rosy-eyed beginner. A better choice is one of the other audiotapes mentioned above." <li> I do not have access to to the text of this audiobook review.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Right to Write to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion is needed about whether Cunard's presented sources are sufficient for notability.
 * Merge and redirect, agree with above editors that sources would be expected especially with the number of editions/copies out there (over 600 libraries have it) but apart from the invevitable [Publishers Weekly|PW] review (here) nothing else has come up, so a section at Julia Cameron looks appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: !Vote changed below. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 01:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * do the sources presented by Cunard match what you were expecting could exist and show notability, or are they insufficient? — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I stated above I would support a keep and this definitely helps. It doesn’t hurt to see the sources in context in the actual article. Archrogue (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with the reviews (that includes the PW review) listed by above (oh, and thanks for the ping:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2021 (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.