Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begierde und Fahrererlaubnis (eine Pornographie)

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. Highly questionable notability to begin with, and a wholly unsourced one line stub. Best case for this would be to merge into the author's article, but there's nothing to merge. Enigma^msg 16:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Begierde und Fahrererlaubnis (eine Pornographie)[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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article name is incorrect, it should be Begierde und Fahrerlaubnis (eine Pornographie). (Fahrerlaubnis has been misspelled in the article.) It's also not a film. I don't know German, but as best I can tell from Google-translated pages, it seems to be some sort of prose work that was subsequently staged as a play. Anyhow, the author won the Nobel Prize, so the odds are it is notable. Will follow up after further research. --RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following up on my comment from earlier, there is some coverage, but it seems to be one of her more minor works with most coverage being in the context of articles about the author rather than this work in particular. Given that much of this is in German, it's not clear to me whether a separate article is really supportable. Normally I would say redirect to the article about the author, but since this title is a typo and the article has minimal content, I've created the correct redirect and support deleting this page. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This work does satisfy the notability criteria. It satisfies GNG. It also satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Elfriede Jelinek, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). The correct approach to dealing with an incorrectly titled page is to move it, not to create another page at the correct name. The correct course of action now is to move this page over the redirect created by RL0919, and then delete the redirect created by that move (which will be at the present location of this page). James500 (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this is by a Nobel Prize winner, it's a three-page prose piece (full text here) originally published in Manuskripte [de], one of 41 pieces she's published in that journal (up to 2015)[1]. I don't think we can assume notability for such a comparatively minor work and it's certainly not a book, so WP:NBOOK is tenuous. It's not been much discussed as far as I can tell. There are 290 hits on Google for "Begierde und Fahrerlaubnis", mostly entries in bibliographies. WP:GNG aren't clearly met, though I may be missing some German sources. By far the most in-depth commentary I can find (in either language) is this, which points out that it was read on stage in the year it was written, the actress wrapped in bandages. I doubt there's much more to say about it than that plus the premise. If it's kept (under the corrected title), I'll add those to the stub. A better solution might be a new article on 'short works by Elfriede Jelinek' or similar, but I'm not at all qualified to write that. I don't see a clear-enough notability argument to vote 'keep', but a corrected stub would be doing no harm and could expand on what's in the author's current article, so I'm going to remain unhelpfully neutral. › Mortee _talk 09:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that length of a publication is, in of itself, a conclusive factor. The Book of Obadiah, for example, is certainly a book, despite its length. And a play can be short. This says that Jelniak wrote more than one "Begierde" work. James500 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- An article should be created for the periodical manuskripte. James500 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed on both points. › Mortee _talk 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it premiered in 1986, here is a little discussion about it (pp. 163, 164), and here is an inteview with Jelinek about it. ps. the length/size of a work has nothing to do with its notableness, for example Fish Cheeks. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to clarify my point about length, just in case I was misunderstood. Short works can certainly be notable (e.g. "El emigrante"), I just don't think WP:NBOOK#5 applies to short stories in literary magazines. In that case, the right guidelines are the WP:GNG. I'm not certain this passes those. The first of the three references above is a mention, the third is an interview (sometimes argued not to be adequately independent; I hadn't seen this though, so thank you for finding it) and the second I mentioned before. I still don't object to keeping the stub on the combined partial grounds of important author, some coverage, performed on stage. › Mortee _talk 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no probs, im on the fence (would like to see more), hence the "comment". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think criteria 5 applies to plays, and since this was performed on stage, I am inclined to regard it as a standalone work, and not merely as part of the periodical. James500 (talk) 16:05, 10 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.