Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singing Stone


 * 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) czar ♔   04:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Singing Stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable references available to demonstrate notability; fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While I have no reason to doubt that the nominator complied with WP:BEFORE, I do wonder how extensive their effort was. Admittedly, the kind of reviews needed to show a thirty-year old book's notability are often old enough to be either entirely offline or only showing up as almost invisible snippets on a GBooks search, but in this case, the second result in a GBooks search using the book's title and author's surname is an academic work which discusses the book in detail. The other results I looked at within the GBooks search weren't as conclusive - but they included entries in bibliographic guides for librarians (reliable but fairly short and possibly not selective enough), a passing mention in a literary encyclopedia (where even a mention is almost certainly based on reliable sources), and a number of older tantalising snippets, which I suspect - but can't prove - would fully establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. Basic check shows the novel was reviewed in Locus #327, a clear signal of notability for works in its genre. Amazon sales page quotes at some length from a favorable review in School Library Journal. I strongly doubt that the nominator complied with WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect and Merge with O. R. Melling. The author barely has notability (probably doesn't), and a Google search with the word "review" mostly brings up self-publishing sites (eg. GoodReads) and amazon.com.  The rest are blogs from what appear to be fans.  No notable reviewer or critic seems to even know this books exists.  I don't see any news sites, lists, awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – I've added more sources to the article. The book was shortlisted for the Ruth Schwartz Children's Book Award; it has received coverage in the Ottawa Citizen and The Globe and Mail, among others. I also see, from my library's database, that it received reviews in Publishers Weekly 231 21 (May 29, 1987): 79; in CM : Canadian Materials for Schools and Libraries 14 6 (Nov 1986): 270; in Quill & Quire 52 10 (Oct 1986): 20; Books in Canada 15 9 (Dec 1986): 18; and in Canadian Children's Literature (1987): 71–72. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (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.