Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator

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 delete. Sandstein 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator[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)

Insufficiently notable. The book has a dismissive footnote from Leslie S. Klinger and is pooh-poohed by Duncan Wu (both cited in the current article) but otherwise only has fleeting mentions in RS. This does not meet the threshold of WP:NBOOK. A mention of the book would however be due at Frankenstein authorship question. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks serious reviews/notice that would confer the notability on the book itself. jps (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find anything that even comes near to meeting WP:NBOOK. --tronvillain (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:FRINGE book with no particular notability. Two people spending a moment to say "this book is bullshit" and a third going, "the author exists and is one of a total of four people to advance this dubious view" do not make for WP:NBOOK level coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what a Fringe book is; books that relate to fringe topics are not excluded from Wikipedia. Publisher is established, author is academically sound, book has an ISBN number. Notability is a spectrum and the bar can be low. The authorship of Frankenstein has been debated since the book was written. While the view that Frankenstein was written by Shelley rather than Mary Shelley is not a mainstream view; it is a view and debated in Frankenstein Unbound by an academic. Such books, more of academic viewpoints, may not receive widespread support or reviews but given the publisher and author can be included in Wikipedia per our own guides. And believe me I don't like the idea that a book like Frankenstein attributed to a woman may have been written by her husband.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does it meet WP:NBOOK? Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NB: "For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice..." and use "common sense" and there "will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear..." I look at the publisher's reputation, the academic training of the author, and the fact that the subject matter has been discussed since Frankenstein was first published and I have to put aside my own position and suggest the book is notable enough to include. And I don't see a good reason to not include. (We aren't short of space). I've seen many comments concerning this book that have to do with the position that the book is Fringe. Fringe does not apply to whether a topic can be included in Wikipedia in the case of books and given publisher and academic qualifications there is no reason think it applies here Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely common sense dictates that a book which has garnered no significant attention by a guy who has garnered no significant attention on a fringe subject that nobody serious takes seriously ... is not worthy of an article. Let's go through the criterita that WP:NB suggests for academic books:

whether the book is published by an academic press - no
how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media - hardly at all
the number of editions of the book - none since the first
whether one or more translations of the book have been published - no
how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area - it is hardly cited
whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions - no

On every count, policy is guiding us to delete this article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But then again a topic that is once again being discussed with enough weight to interest a reputable publisher is of interest enough to be included here? That's also common sense? I am not suggesting this is a great academic work at this point simply that it meets a low threshold for inclusion. I refer back to my points above. (I haven't checked the institutions that are teaching Frankenstein so cannot comment on use for teaching). With not much more to say for my part; I have to rush off. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2019 (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.