Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Square A Circle

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. ✗plicit 14:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Square A Circle[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)

The single review consists of a short paragraph at the end of a review of another poetry collection, from a source of dubious reliability. Searches did not turn up enough coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a terrible title to search for coverage, but I didn't find enough reviews to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG in the usual places. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mainly searched on Google using ("to square a circle" lee review) and no reviews besides the one mentioned by nominator. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable. A prime example of why there should be a speedy category for books. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK nor WP:GNG as not enough reviews of this collection. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's only one sole review for this collection, which isn't enough to establish notability. I do want to note about the sole review, that the article reviews both this collection and another - the review covers both throughout the piece. The source is also a joint collaboration by the "University Press of Mississippi, Lemuria Books, and the Clarion-Ledger / Hattiesburg American", which would imply that this site would have decent enough editorial oversight to be considered a RS. (This seems to strongly suggest it as well.) This one sole review isn't enough to establish notability, but I wanted to make note of this in case there are other works that might use this as a source. It would be nice if they had a page about said editorial oversight, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (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.