Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barfüßiger Februar[edit]

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

Non notable book, no sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio what would motivate you to strike several books of an author when you probably never wrote one? I vote to retain. Thank you Pvujin (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant if I ever wrote a book myself or not. Per WP:NBOOK, in order to be notable, a book must satisfy at least one of the criteria in WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Currently, there is not the slightest sign of verification through any third party sources that this book does. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was not tagged with the AFD1 template; I went ahead and did this. As for the merits - surely there's a viable redirect target somewhere? It's likely that this book is not, itself, notable; perhaps it should be listed as part of the author's body of work? Nothing here would prevent an expansion, if sourcing could be found to back such expansion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. It's a very safe bet that literary works by Nobel laureates in literature will have received the coverage required to establish notability. The fact that an editor has established a comprehensive set of stub articles for the author's books, which other editors may expand at their convenience, is not at all a bad thing. The nominator makes no case whatever for deletion, and this long string of cookie-cutter nominations over a brief period of time, quite frankly, will lead most editors to the conclusion that the nominator has made no effort, whether per WP:BEFORE or otherwise, to assess whether the subjects are in fact notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forgot about NBOOK 5 - put me down as a keep. That said, I don't think a combined article for these works would be that terrible, especially if it consolidates the editors working on this author's books. I don't imagine this is a high traffic area; more collaboration is always good. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTINHERITED. Prove the book is notable, just because a Nobel laureate wrote it does not mean that it contributed to the Nobel Prize. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response- WP:NOTINHERITED specifically links to the exceptions of WP:NBOOK, #5 of which is the most germane. The Literature Nobel is given for an author's body of work to date, any item of which should be presumed to have been considered in the decision; subsequent works obviously were not, but are likely to receive attention sooner because of the author's recognition. This mass deletion listing seems only to have avoided (with the exception of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadirs, above), only those which won individual awards, were previously translated into English, or had been previously reviewed in the New York Times, Wikipedia:Systemic bias of foreign-language materials in WP:RS, at least those available online, which made possible development of specific articles about her work. The author was the subject of biographies, in 1992, 1993, 2002, and 2003, not because she was Romanian, wrote in German, or left Romania, but because of the quality and breadth of her writing as a dissident; while she was awarded the Nobel in 2009, she had been discussed as a possible candidate prior to 2009's The Land of Green Plums. If not kept, Redirect to 'Herta Müller' as valid search term. Dru of Id (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per rationales of each previous keep vote above. Dru of Id (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dru of Id and others. Inherited notability, it's almost certain that there is content out there, and there's no deadline on Wikipedia. Bob talk 08:07, 27 April 2011 (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.