Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In der Falle (3rd nomination)

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. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In der Falle[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No prejudice against the idea that an article of more than one sentence could be written, but at present this is just a useless WP:CONTENTFORK of the article on the author, which already says she wrote a novel called In der Falle in 1996. The claim that because she won a Nobel Prize that retroactively makes every book-length prose work she has written notable enough for a standalone article borders on WP:NOTINHERITED; if she had won it exclusively for her poetry, for example, claiming that this applied to her prose works that meet a certain arbitrary length criteria would be laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is long standing consensus that nobel prizewinners satisfy criteria 5 of the guideline NBOOK. This kind of nomination has been tried before and it has, as far as I am aware, always failed. Why do you think the previous nominations ended in failure? James500 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on a Nobel Prize-winner. It's an article on an apparently quite obscure book (de.wiki doesn't even have an article on it) that predates her Nobel win by 13 years. Additionally, the claim that novels by Nobel laureates automatically merit standalone articles while non-book-length works do not, even when their poetry was explicitly mentioned by the prizegivers, is ... questionable. I personally think Beowulf (Seamus Heaney) is much more likely to meet GNG than this book. NBOOK is a guideline that can be ignored in cases where its application would be unhelpful; in this case, readers looking for information on this book and its author would be much better served by linking them straight to the article on the author, as it already includes just as much information on the book and tons more information on the author. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just now noticed that I was answering the wrong question (it looked like I should respond to "Why do you think the previous nominations that have been tried before and have always failed ended in failure?"): there has only been one prior AFD of this page, from seven years ago (the "second nomination" was a botched attempt earlier today -- again, I don't plan on being tricked into defending that editor's clumsy behaviour), and it ended in "failure" because only seven months (rather than, as now, eight years) had passed in which no one had managed to write anything in the article beyond content forking of the article on the author. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: so far there has been only one !vote in favour of "keep" and two explicitly saying redirect. If this situation does not change in the next week the AFD should be closed as either "no consensus; slight majority in favour of redirect, but that doesn't require admin action" or "weak consensus to redirect": please do not close as "keep", as such a "consensus statement" would make redirecting difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Assuming Cullen's edits are accurate and not, say, a misinterpretation by a tertiary source that read a blurb about this book from the Nobel committee and read some other stuff into it, then I have no problem with the article remaining standalone, since it now includes at least some stuff that isn't in our main article on Müller. However, the self-contradictory (all the cats indicate that this work is a "novel") content definitely needs to be fixed, and Template:Herta Muller needs to be edited to remove the same apparently counterfactual claim. This is not just a problem with this page but with garbage sub-stubs that get left in the mainspace by editors who don't give a fig's leaf about whether the content they "created" is accurate or verifiable. It's also a little concerning that now with the German personal names and the title of the German-language source taking up most of the text of the article, Google Chrome automatically detects the page as being in German and tries to translate the page: I'm not saying that a sub-stub that relies heavily on a single foreign-language source whose title takes up a significant portion of the article's text needs to be deleted or redirected, but I do wonder about further potential to expand if this is the state we are leaving the page in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article and added two references. There is no need to delete or redirect. Unsurprisingly, this book of literary criticism by a Nobel Prize winner has itself been the subject of literary analysis. The book is not obscure since the Nobel Prize committee mentioned it when she received the award. As our article on the prize says, "Though individual works are sometimes cited as being particularly noteworthy, the award is based on an author's body of work as a whole." In this particular case, the Nobel Prize committee did not mention any specific book by her but rather the award was given for her entire body of work. The book is not a novel but rather an analysis of the poetry of three notable writers working under dictatorships. Any editor who reads German well can easily expand the article further. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons so eloquently put by Cullen328 above (note, i am not a member of the Cullen fanclub, the penguin cabal (SQUAWK!!) on the other hand.... :)). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referenced further with a handful of good sources, there are more out there, and an expansion is possible. Meets BK 1 and 5. Sam Sailor 12:35, 28 July 2018 (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.