Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Book of Giants

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. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Book of Giants[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been completely unreferenced for over 5 years. I can't find any reviews of the novel or any other sources that would help satisfy any aspect of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree, my searches found nothing good aside from amazon.com, goodreads, etc. but nothing even in the slightest good. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to author Ruth Manning-Sanders which could do with a bit of 'fleshing out' in its list of works. Was going to say Keep but have only been able to find one review[1] and one instance of it being used for school study [2] (incorporated into the article) which is unfortunately the way with a lot of English children's books from this era. (sigh...) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found a reliably-sourced review on the Guardian & Observer Digital Archive, by Naomi Lewis in the Observer of 22nd July 1962, page 19: "A splendid jacket by Robin Jacques at once invites the eye. Of course, myths have almost always been unfair to giants: still, we could not separate them from nursery lore, especially when, as in several of these tales, they are merely kindly, stupid fellows, easily outwitted (but not slain) by some sharp little dwarf. Though some are from local sources, others are from as far afield as Russian Georgia or Jutland. But are they so different?" Maybe this could be added as a source if the article survives? RobinCarmody (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now we have two reviews which satisfies WP:NBOOK. And there is also a cover of a German edition of 1974 here. Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews found by Coolabahapple (talk · contribs) and RobinCarmody (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) as noted by Kraxler (talk · contribs).
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
changed to Keep as it now meets WP:NBOOKS(hooooraay:)) thanks to RobinCarmody, have incorporated The Observer review into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NBOOK notability criteria are clearly met. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.