Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy, We Hardly Knew You

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. There is no reasonable prospect at this point that a consensus will develop to delete this article. BD2412 T 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy, We Hardly Knew You[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 book's sources include two descriptions of the book that have no named author (because both were likely written by its publicist or some other non-independent person) and another to a primary source that mentions how the book was mentioned once in a Simpson's episode (there is no discussion of the book there at all). This article needs to show evidence of the book being the subject of discussion in multiple verifiable reliable and (most important) WP:INDEPENDENT sources that discuss the subject (the book) non-trivially (which I did not find). A loose necktie (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reviewed by The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, Toronto Star, The Boston Globe, The Gazette, Chicago Tribune, dozens more. Caro7200 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep – All reviews from Publishers Weekly are anonymous. The book has also received coverage and/or reviews in the Los Angeles Times (link), The Women's Review of Books (JSTOR 4020762), Time (link), The Antioch Review (JSTOR 4612257), The Atlantic (ProQuest 223112429), Australian Book Review (ProQuest 1308614170), the Melbourne Journal of Politics (ProQuest 1300235483), The Spectator (ProQuest 1295815681), the London Review of Books (link), The New York Times (ProQuest 108619399), etc. DanCherek (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germaine Greer. This doesn't seem to be one of her major works; it certainly deserves to be included in her page and point readers towards it, but I don't see a need for an independent article here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has multiple reviews as listed above ps. whether one of an author's major works is irrelevant. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do these reviews count as more than W:ROUTINE coverage of the subject? Or are they the kind of coverage that any book of this type is likely to receive? Are there any guidelines on this? A loose necktie (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how WP:ROUTINE is applied to articles related to art--it's not similar to routine coverage about candidates for minor political offices. I suppose, in the book sense, that routine coverage would be "just" Kirkus or Publishers Weekly or Library Journal reviews... Caro7200 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually consider it “routine” for a book to be listed under “books received” at an academic journal or “books published” in a trade mag like PW, the kinds of things which basically just say “this exists”. You’d be surprised how often books don’t even get Kirkus and Booklist reviews. So I consider Kirkus, PW, and Booklist reviews non-routine/non-trivial, though they’re not always thrilling as evidence of notability, so I like to see all three and maybe a starred review at one of them to feel confident in a book’s notability. There is nothing remotely routine about getting reviewed in the New York Times. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notwithstanding not being one of Greer's major works, it clearly has feature reviews in multiple notable publications which is more than just trivial mentions. Boneymau (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant book with many substantial reviews with bylines in Australian and foreign newspapers when it was published. The current lack of detail does not indicate that it is not notable. Clearly it is.--Grahame (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant reviews justify this page (rather than merge with Greer). Cabrils (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This has been reviewed by many notable media and publishers. Alex-h (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2022 (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.