565:. This novel does not seem notable in itself. The author probably is - the phrase "award wining" seems to be bandied about a lot - so what really needs done is to create an article for her and merge this there. That makes this difficult at the moment. The options are to delete, or move to somebodies user space until an article is created.
48:. I am not relisting because Blackbirdz's recommendation has stayed for 5 days without a change from the original "keep" !voters, so a relist is unlikely to help. There will be no prejudice against merging to the author's article, provided that there is sufficient consensus to do so at the article's talk page.
322:
1) Article's sources are blogs, rather than multiple significant reliable sources, 2) Lists no major literary awards, 3) has not made a significant contribution to a film or political movement etc. 4) No sign that it is the topic of instruction at educational institutions, and 5) No sign this author
165:
as acceptable split for positively reviewed book concerning titular setting in actually two different
Romance novels. Support creating article about author as well, as author has written multiple books for which additional reviews exist. Thus, at worst we would merge and redirect to an article on
190:
The only reason this author doesn't have an article yet, is that most people that read
Romances novels don't edit the wikipedia. We need to check places that actually review romance novels, since most don't take them seriously or bother with them, to find mention of her and her books.
374:--and this is really IDONTLIKEIT as applied to an entire genre. I despise soap operas, but i don't try to say the entire body of articles on them should be removed--though it would admittedly solve some problems :)
401:. That the award-winning author does not yet have an article is a reason to write one... but not a valid reason to otherwise deny the notability of the author or the author's work. That the author and book can meet
488:, he however does not provide evidence that this book has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So, I'll redirect to the author if no one objects.
299:
Reader reviews do not make a book notable. There is a reliable source for reviews of this genre, which is
LibraryJournal, which regularly features them. I haven't checked for this author though.
241:
132:
143:. However, this is a book by an author who lacks a WP article herself, and one blog review and a couple of user-submitted reviews do not appear to meet the requirements of
175:
178:, as deletion is an extreme last resort and in this case, we know it i not libelous or a hoax and that not all other possibilities have been considered. Best, --
405:
is enough to allow both the article and the project to be improved through normal editing. A sampling of sources (Not blogs) addressing the work or the author:
99:
94:
103:
510:
86:
522:
for now. I would tend to merge borderline notable books into their author's article, but as this doesn't have such a target, it should be kept.
452:
Your sources prove notability for the author, not the novel - and in fact more than half the sources don't even mention the novel in question.
62:
418:
506:
430:
17:
406:
323:
is of major histrorical significance. Exhaustive search of my library and its databases shows no sign that this book meets
90:
589:
574:
555:
537:
514:
497:
479:
461:
442:
385:
357:
340:
310:
291:
271:
258:
231:
214:
182:
156:
68:
36:
546:-- which is what I was referring to in my comment above yours. So, yeah, let's redirect this to the author article.
438:
422:
426:
588:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
227:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
348:. I don't see how any book from a romance publisher is going to be notable enough to pass muster around here.
139:
I created this article from material that had been inserted in an article about a completely different topic,
371:
82:
74:
256:
171:
551:
493:
434:
336:
484:
An article on the author appears worthwhile. While
MichaelQSchmidt suggests this book itself meets
410:
223:
52:
49:
167:
543:
353:
249:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
570:
530:
457:
284:
192:
140:
485:
414:
402:
547:
489:
332:
328:
324:
319:
144:
152:
475:
381:
349:
306:
179:
120:
566:
523:
453:
268:
148:
470:
376:
301:
468:
There is probably enough reason to try an article on the author.
222:
I have added a citation. Seems notable enough for our purposes.
582:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
327:, and while I see the claim above that this does meet
127:
116:
112:
108:
279:- Is a notable article as stated above. Don't see
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
592:). No further edits should be made to this page.
147:. The material should be deleted as nonnotable.
242:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
176:User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better
8:
236:
542:Actually, it does have such a target --
505:, looks notable and verifiable to me. --
370:there are several hundred that are, see
240:: This debate has been included in the
267:- Meets book criteria for notability
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
331:, I see no explanation of how.
507:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
283:reason to delete whatsoever.
609:
575:20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
556:15:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
538:09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
515:04:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
498:01:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
480:00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
462:20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
443:18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
433:. AfD is not for cleanup.
386:21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
358:06:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
341:04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
311:23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
292:21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
272:20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
259:17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
232:17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
215:17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
183:16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
157:15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
69:22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
585:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
372:Category:Romance novels
83:Salvation, Texas (book)
75:Salvation, Texas (book)
407:Abilene Reporter-News
431:Beaumont Enterprise
423:Dallas Morning News
544:Jeffrey McClanahan
44:The result was
261:
245:
600:
587:
534:
527:
287:
252:
246:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
141:Salvation, Texas
130:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
608:
607:
603:
602:
601:
599:
598:
597:
596:
590:deletion review
583:
532:
525:
435:MichaelQSchmidt
427:Library Journal
415:RT Book Reviews
285:
250:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
166:the author per
126:
97:
81:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
606:
604:
595:
594:
578:
577:
560:
559:
558:
517:
500:
482:
465:
464:
446:
445:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
361:
360:
343:
313:
294:
274:
262:
234:
224:Colonel Warden
217:
185:
137:
136:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
605:
593:
591:
586:
580:
579:
576:
572:
568:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
536:
535:
529:
528:
521:
518:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
481:
477:
473:
472:
467:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
396:
387:
383:
379:
378:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
303:
298:
295:
293:
290:
288:
282:
278:
275:
273:
270:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
253:
243:
239:
235:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
216:
213:
212:
189:
186:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
584:
581:
562:
531:
524:
519:
502:
469:
449:
398:
375:
345:
315:
300:
296:
289:
280:
276:
264:
251:Juliancolton
248:
237:
219:
193:
187:
162:
138:
45:
43:
31:
28:
419:Dallas News
399:Strong keep
297:Weak Delete
286:Airplaneman
172:WP:PRESERVE
548:Blackbirdz
490:Blackbirdz
333:Blackbirdz
411:The Eagle
168:WP:BEFORE
350:Hairhorn
180:A Nobody
133:View log
450:Comment
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
567:Alan16
486:WP:GNG
454:Alan16
403:WP:GNG
346:Delete
318:fails
316:Delete
174:, and
128:delete
104:delete
563:Merge
329:WP:BK
325:WP:BK
320:WP:BK
269:Panyd
210:Focus
145:WP:BK
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
571:talk
552:talk
520:Keep
511:talk
503:Keep
494:talk
476:talk
458:talk
439:talk
382:talk
354:talk
337:talk
307:talk
277:Keep
265:Keep
247:-- –
238:Note
228:talk
220:Keep
188:Keep
163:Keep
153:talk
149:Deor
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
46:keep
533:Mod
526:Yob
471:DGG
377:DGG
302:DGG
281:any
573:)
554:)
513:)
496:)
478:)
460:)
441:)
429:,
425:,
421:,
417:,
413:,
409:,
384:)
356:)
339:)
309:)
255:|
244:.
230:)
170:,
155:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
569:(
550:(
509:(
492:(
474:(
456:(
437:(
380:(
352:(
335:(
305:(
226:(
207:m
204:a
201:e
198:r
195:D
151:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.