Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cow Country (Adrian Jones Pearson)

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 merge to Cow Country (novel). (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 02:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Country (Adrian Jones Pearson)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book's author is a redlink, and so is its publisher. The sources in the article appear to be from unreliable sources as well. The prize it won does not have an article either and appears to be unremarkable. The only review I could find is from Kirkus Reviews, which normally might give this some notability, but with this being the only review I could find and with coverage lacking elsewhere, I'm not sure if this is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. This is my first article, so thank you for your patience. To support the idea of notability, I've added a recent citation from Harper's Magazine suggesting that the author of this novel is Thomas Pynchon. If true, this would be a major literary discovery. I will also track down some of the other links that I've included in the article - and/or remove them if I am unable to find them. Thank you

Nzeldner2015 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)nzeldner2015[reply]

- As much as I love a good hoax, the Cow Eye Express is clearly an invented newspaper, which serves the purpose of "creating" this author (as well as supporting this flimsy WP article). On the other hand, if this is Thomas Pynchon, then that's all in keeping with his trickster self. The suggestion that the book was published by Pynchon is likely to stir more debate and produce several more notable scholarly sources; some publications superior to the Cow Eye Express may even wade into this shit. Josh a brewer (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Significant coverage in today's New York Times [1] as well as a report syndicated nationally today by the AP.[2] The lengthy Harper's piece cited in the article would probably have sufficed on its own, but in combination with the Times and AP coverage there's really no question left open. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: That's odd, those sources didn't exist when I nominated this article for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You nominated on Wednesday morning, the Harper's piece was posted on Wednesday afternoon, and the Times and AP pieces were published on Saturday. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May already be known, but there is another Wikipedia page for this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Country_(novel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckduckgoo (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the more correctly named Cow Country (novel) article (nice catch Duckduckgoo!). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this was definitely faked. The Dinwiddie award, frex, isn't actually a real award — it's a fictional invention of a little walled garden of fake newspaper coverage that was created by the novel's author as an extension of the novel, and the criticism from Cow Eye Community College itself suffers from the same problem. That said, the emerging speculation about a connection to Thomas Pynchon in actual reliable sources definitely boosts the notability here — even if it turns out that Pynchon didn't actually write it, the tidal wave of RS coverage that's already starting to roll in will get it over the bar regardless of who else might have. Merge into Cow Country (novel), which does a better job of sourcing and explaining the real-world context but fails to contain a basic plot description. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Cow Country (novel). The book itself is notable, but I don't really see anything here that's factual that isn't already covered in the main book article. I don't want this article's history to be left since Bearcat has commented that there were sources for the article that were part of a promotional gimmick for the book and are as such fake. Leaving this article history behind might encourage others to add this to the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of these articles has to go, although this article was created two days before the other, the other, Cow Country (novel) is a more appropriate title and hasn't been put up for deletion, this one has.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Technically Cow Country (novel) created on 11 September was a A10 candidate duplicating Cow Country (Adrian Jones Pearson) created on 9 September. But since the former is correctly titled and better sourced, and since the the latter has no relevant page history and maybe an irrelevant one per Tokyogirl179, KISS and delete the here nominated article. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 2 October 2015 (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.