Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Death of the Death of the 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 snow close and speedy delete as obvious promotional material (WP:CSD#G11). — Scott • talk 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of the Death of the Novel[edit]

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

(Contested prod) This is a non-notable essay. This gscholar search shows that (a) this essay has zero citations and (b) there's a much more well-known, although in my opinion still not notable, essay of the same name by Jerome Klinkowitz from 1975. This essay does have some citations. A search in gbooks turns up no results. The two sources are not indicative of notability. Newpages.com seems to be some kind of promotional site for small literary magazines and the other source is from the editors' notes in the issue of the Summerset Review that the essay was published in. I am asking for a deletion without a redirect to the author, Robert Clark Young, because it appears that this would be a more likely search term for Klinkowitz's essay. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice to redirect per Cola below. I'd actually say this is promotional stuff from User:Qworty (aka Robert Clark Young per here). Ansh666 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of the novel which mentions Young's ideas (and presumably Klinkowitz's paper of the same name is about the same subject). As a published paper in a reputable journal, it's reasonable to reference it in the article on the death of the novel, its subject. But the paper is not itself notable - academic papers very rarely are. A (selective?) merge to the author is also possible but since his article doesn't currently mention the essay, a straight redirect wouldn't be very useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to badger, but I would like to note that this is not an academic paper, it's an essay in a literary journal. It is not mentioned in any secondary sources that I can find so there's nothing to merge to the author. I am not especially opposed to redirecting it to Death of the novel but (a) I don't think this is a likely search term for that and (b) I took all the material on this essay out of that article since the essay is not notable. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made my researches and I agree with the nominator that the borderline notability of "Death of the Death of the Novel" wholly relies to the Jerome Klinkowitz's 1975 essay. This one fails our notability guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously not notable on its own, though I would differ with alf on one point as the work by Klinkowitz is actually used as the prologue to a seemingly notable book Klinkowitz did called Literary Disruptions. There doesn't appear to be an article on the book, but should someone create one it would suitable as a redirect to it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point conceded, gracefully, I hope.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it lacks notability and is just a COI'd self-promo. Capscap (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has all the markings of a COI and non-notable. Two reviews do not qualify as significant coverage, and the author isn't significant enough in the field to have his writings deserve a separate article. I would just delete without redirect. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find secondary-source references to it to justify notability. Excalibre (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a disgrace. Abductive (reasoning) 20:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the concerns above about notability are clearly dead on. Note that one of those so-called "reviews" is simply a sentence in a blog: http://newpagesblog.blogspot.mx Ironically, Robert Clark Young himself - as "Qworty" - would have killed this entry in a second. And he would have snorted with great derision while doing so. NaymanNoland (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps we could get a Snow close.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion. The two rave quotes and a description of the essay are basically all we have so G11 fits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 24 May 2013 (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.