Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vater telefoniert mit den Fliegen

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) 15:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vater telefoniert mit den Fliegen[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 . No references used. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:08, 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 14:09, 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 14:25, 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 14:25, 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) 17:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... but nowhere it says she won it for /that/ book. The author may be notable but the book isn't. It doesn't even have any references. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 5 of NBOOK says the book is notable because it was written by a nobel prizewinner. Your arguments are not relevant to criteria 5. One of the purposes of that criteria is to prevent a WP:MASSNOM of poorly written articles about topics that are likely to have a large amount of coverage. Notability does not depend on article content (WP:NAC). James500 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also states "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mostly per nom and per the fact that it is a worthless stub that can easily be mentioned on the author's page. -- » Shadowowl | talk 21:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The corresponding article in German de:Vater telefoniert mit den Fliegen shows that the book is notable. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Editors should check non-English sources for non-English topics before nominating an article for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest REDIRECT not delete. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a surprise that in-depth coverage was found quickly. Focus, Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Neue Presse are just some examples.[1][2][3]--Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody bothered to improve the article. I think the article should be redirected into the author's page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was started because of notability reasons, not article improvement. Now notability and passing WP:GNG has been established. AfD is not clean-up. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you would be fine if a redirect is done? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. That way those with more knowledge or interest on the topic have an article basis from which to grow upon. Some articles can take many years to develop. There is no hurry to make articles GA status. I've created a ton of foreign language topic articles as stubs. Many were developed by other editors over the years into major articles, other are still stubs. In this case the German WP article is a great place to start. --Oakshade (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, all the articles are in the format "[Work of literature] is [type of work] by [author name]. It was first published in [date]." It tells nothing more about the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per James500, Eastmain and Oakshade. My German isn't strong enough to expand the article much, but I've added some information to it at least. Mortee (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: book appears to be notable. PamD 12:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK as established by previous !voters, and now has content that would like never have been added, had the article been redirected. Daß Wölf 22:46, 27 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.