Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of This Earth

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 redirect to Bruce Marshall. yandman 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children of This Earth[edit]

I can't find any notability. Google News has one result, a passing mention, and Google search isn't much better. The article's content borders on CSD A1, as well. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Marshall is a historically significant and prolific writer (more than 40 books). He is quite popular among Catholic readers. Wikipedia prides itself on being a repository of information, and my article, though very short, does give potential readers a sketch of what this particular book is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably notable but needs expansion. If not possible then it should be merged into Bruce Marshall. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on him, especially since it contains only one line of text. For most authors, not all their work will be equally notable. Looking at his books in worldCat, I see that, after, after 60 years or more, The world, the flesh, and Father Smith, still has 940 library holdings; Vespers in Vienna" 694; 'White rabbit 689; This has 6. I have not looked for contemporary reviews, butt rhis does not seem like one of his major works. DGG (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crappy one line article on non notable book, can be merged to the author's page. Lets drinkTea 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This clearly needs to be written better. If the author is notable, it should be possible to find reviews of his works through Catholic magazines and such. So I'm willing to posit sources exist, just not online. Ancemy (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DGG. To author: we try to be comprehensive in our coverage, but that doesn't mean giving every single book its own article. We can cover small pieces of info in a larger article on a related topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - book is notable enough for its own article. Wordssuch (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If more info comes up, it can always be recreated. This as it stands isn't worth the space. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's article without prejudice. Allow recreation if/when more sources are made available toward the book's individual notability. It was reviewed by New York Times [1] on May 11, 1930, but I do not have access to such an old review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG and others above. Non-notable on its own. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 3 March 2009 (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.