Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fifth Sorceress

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. WP:SNOW TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Sorceress[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)

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and does not cite any reliable, independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Reviews: [1], [2], ProQuest 196801442, ProQuest 323900818, ProQuest 373864411, ProQuest 279786057. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per AleatoryPonderings, but I am concerned that such poorly cited articles as this one and (much more importantly) the related page Robert Newcomb have such harshly negative tones based on essentially no sources. There might possibly be a speedy deletion argument for Robert Newcomb as a page with "biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". - Astrophobe (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Astrophobe too. --Gazal world (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AleatoryPonderings's comment. --Gazal world (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional reviews from independent sources have been added to the page one positive: [3] and one mixed [4].JCTullos (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, but recognizing Astrophobe's concern regarding tone. Article might need some POV cleanup (though "a book sold jack and got bad reviews" isn't POV by itself). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as multiple reviews available as brought out by AleatoryPonderings above, oh, and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to receive significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The sources do not simply repeat the same information but give independent analysis. Meets our basic notability criteria found in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:00, 19 January 2021 (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.