Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Only Spins Forward: The Ascent of Angels in America


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The World Only Spins Forward: The Ascent of Angels in America

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems like a very clear and unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Angels in America (which at barely 35,000 bytes is still a small article). The book was published less than two weeks ago, and while it has some standard book reviews and thus technically meets criterion #1 of WP:NBOOK, it's still merely a content fork of the parent article and thus has no independent notability of its own. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a content fork. It is an entirely different but related topic. It also clearly passes WP:NBOOK. These are not trivial book reviews. They are lengthy articles,, , . The fact that it is currently somewhat short is likewise not a reason to delete the article. It can easily be expanded from the sources already there. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a content fork per WP:RELAR, as articles about distinct, related topics may share some content, without being content forks. As a book which collects original interviews and other sources in order to present a historical record of the play Angels in America, its sociopolitical context, influence, place in LGBT history, etc., I think it qualifies as a distinct topic. I added more sources, a quick summary of the subject matter, and started adding to the reception section, and as Voceditenore said, there is more potential to expand. The source articles provide significant coverage by discussing the book itself, its style, form, development, themes, etc. as the main subject, not simply as a side note to the play, thus making it independently notable according to WP:GNG. ElfLady64 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:10, 6 March 2018 (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.