Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourcery

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. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcery[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)

Notability for this book has not been shown JonnyDKeen (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep. All of Pratchett's Discworld books have their own articles (template listing at the bottom of the article page). Google search for "sourcery terry pratchett" generates 75000 hits, including several independent reviews in the first 3 pages or so. Notability may not be shown in the article, but a trivial WP:BEFORE effort would establish that the book is notable, and AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK. The author, Terry Pratchett, has received a knighthood for services to literature. His works are generally the object of academic study eg [1]. James500 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per the others above. Major author. This was a lazy AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the WP:INHERITED- and WP:OSE-type arguments made by some of the "snow(ball) keep" !votes above (the claim, for instance, that a book about Pratchett and philosophy probably includes some coverage of this book in particular is laughable, and Oakshade's jab at the nominator borders on NPA-violation), I find it incredibly hard to believe that enough coverage in reliable secondary sources doesn't exist to write a decent article on an early entry in the Discworld series.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK#5. It's difficult to find contemporaneous reviews of a book published in 1988, but I'm sure they exist. [2] [3] [4] [5] are some reviews at the top of a Google search (though I can't vouch for their publishers). And of course TVTropes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. The book has received several non-trivial reviews. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:31, 29 August 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.