Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pastoral (1944 novel)

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoral (1944 novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable romance novel tagged as unreferenced since December 2009. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that this book is non-notable? For example, there are several pages of coverage about it in this book, which was just the first potential source that I found in a few seconds. Not having sources in an article is not a reason for deletion - we need to check whether sources exist before making such nominations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it also becomes a question of whether WP:NBOOK criterion #5 applies or not. Is Shute considered a major enough figure in English letters? On that, his biographical article doesn't have much to say about major literary honours. Indeed, a Google search has difficulty pulling up literary criticism of this book, but it may be just because I don't know how to find... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'll get off the fence + say delete. Doesn't appear to meet NBOOK and~~ while On the Beach was a very famous work, Shute's status doesn't appear to confer notability on this work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to have a whole chapter devoted to it in this book. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found two reviews and evidence of a third one from the London Spectator, although for some reason I'm having difficulty pulling it up with my school database. I'll add it to the article just so the citation is there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that The Spectator has only been digitised as far back as 2001. At least the Nexis and Gale Cengage databases subscribed to by my university library only go back that far. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep: my rule of thumb for GNG is three reliable sources. I wasn't able to find them but thanks to some very good work, we now have them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that enough coverage has been found. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a keep per above reasoning, Sadads (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2016 (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.