Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Comedy of Terrors

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) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC) (nomination withdrawn and only K !votes (except one by the nominator, that can be considered moot as they withdrew sometime later))[reply]

A Comedy of Terrors

[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:BKCRIT. Very poor sources consisting of author's website and the publisher's website. No reviews. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: several reviews in WP:RS were easy to find and have now been added. (I created the original stub). PamD 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviewed in Publishers Weekly here, a short paragraph in The New York Times here and a paragraph in The Times here. They aren't the longest, but this amount should be enough to meet NBOOK. On a side note, if the other books in the series receive similarly low amounts of coverage, it may make more sense to just merge all books into a single article for the entire series. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I could agree that this much is enough, but with the other books in the series there is the same problem, as you mentioned.
Mlody1312 (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it seems obvious that reliable sources exist, and should have been located WP:BEFORE this nomination was made. Some books by this author seem to have more extensive discussions, including plot summaries (on the other hand, some predate widespread internet-available sources). But a merger of the rest into a bibliography of this author with say, a paragraph or two on each work, from which individual articles could be split out if there's enough to say about them, as there apparently is for some, is probably a good idea. A publication history and list of reviews doesn't seem like enough to justify a stand-alone article, but if you add a plot summary then there probably is, since that would be too much to cover in a bibliography. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have checked this whole Flavia Albia series and the problem is that almost all volumes have the same problem, i.e. the only sources are the publisher's website and the author's website. This does not meet the criteria of WP:BKCRIT. If a proper coverage for every volume cannot be found, then all volumes are not justified to remain.
Mlody1312 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correction: then all THOSE volumes (those that do not meet the criteria). Mlody1312 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources were so easy to find for this one the others are probably the same, just because the sources aren't in the page right now doesn't mean they don't exist. If a search is conducted in places like ProQuest and none are found then it may be an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The author of the article added sources to the references, which can be considered acceptable enough. However, the vast majority of the other volumes in the Flavia Alba book series (which the subject of this article is part of) share the same problem mentioned in my explanation at the top of the discussion. I'm willing to change my position from delete to merge if the author of the page agrees. My reason for merging is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Merging_to_broader_subjects All volumes could be transferred to the newly created article about the whole Flavia Alba series. Currently, the link to the entire series redirects to the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavia_Albia Mlody1312 (talk)

Every book by this author is likely to be reviewed in solid reliable sources, just as in this example. Merging would lose the opportunity to include the cover images, which are intelligent and interesting images but for copyright reasons can only be included in an article about an individual book. PamD 22:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above, there are sources. If someone wants to write an article on the series and merge them, that's an option if we decide it's better that way, but we don't have an article on the series, and it's likely that most of the books fulfill NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And could the nominator not vote three separate times? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge : Well, if there are sources, they should be added to every volume by the author of the articles. As long as they are not added, the articles fails WP:BKCRIT Mlody1312 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No: notability of a topic depends on the existence of sources, not necessarily their inclusion in the article. PamD 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that, because of:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Articles_that_are_plot_summaries

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Article_body

What I'm trying to say is that as long as you don't include the sources you are talking about in your articles, these articles remain consisting merely of an introductory paragraph (saying what is this, who published it, etc) + a very brief plot description. And this is not a properly written article. Mlody1312 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312 "Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible [...] to write..." keyword being possible. If you can, given the existing sources, write an article that does not have this problem, it is fine. Unrelated to the state of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only quoted the beginning of the sentence. Mlody1312 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because that was the only part that mattered and you had very clearly read the second half. But whatever,

"Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or unverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criterion 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE."

It is possible. You cannot dispute that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And note that as proposer of deletion you have already voted, so you should not include another bolded vote: I have unbolded your vote to avoid confusion. PamD 22:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not how this works. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NEXIST. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I stand my ground when it comes to merging the whole Flavia Alba series. The author of the article has added some sources to this particular volume (A Comedy of Terrors), but the volumes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 are still not meeting the WP:BKCRIT. The author of these articles claims that "the sources exist" but it seems like he is not willing to add them, as he claims "notability of a topic depends on the existence of sources, not necessarily their inclusion in the article." It is not coherent with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Articles_that_are_plot_summaries Mlody1312 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312: Please stop repeatedly casting votes. This is not the place to suggest the merging of the other books. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: I have added 3-4 reviews to each of the volumes you have mentioned, except for the latest one, for which I only found two reviews. They aren't very long, but this amount should be enough to pass WP:BKCRIT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Some reviews were added to every volume of the series. They can be considered acceptable enough. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2024 (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.