- 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. Withdrawn by the nom (me). Sufficient sources have been found to suggest borderline notability. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Selected Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Munro. Identical case, so quoting from my prior AfD: "Anthology of short stories. Yes, the author won a Nobel Prize in Literature. No, that doesn't mean each of her works is notable (see also WP:NBOOK). Arguably, many of her short stories are notable and we probably need articles on more than we have, but anthologies are just containers, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Love Lost (book) (an AfD for another anthology of hers that ended up as a redirect), unless we can show that this anthology received coverage as a whole, related to the process of selection of the stories contained in it, it probably should be just a redirect, rather than (as currently), an unreferenced catalogue entry. PS. Note that this collection just reprints stories published before. Her anthologies which contain original work are more likely to be notable, but this is pretty routine." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Added 3 refs, including reviews from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and London Review of Books. These are unquestionably RS, like most other of their reviews, the Kirkus and PW ones are a bit short, but is a
lengthy paragraph
to count to SIGCOV. It seems to meet WP:GNG or criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK, only needing 2 or more refs. IMHO, this should be kept. VickKiang (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Piotrus: Ping nom, are the current refs okay in your opinion? VickKiang (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two are very short, but the last one is very much in-depth. It's kind of borderline now, but given she is a Nobel Prize winner, I think we can AGF the significance of this, with a nod towards NBOOK #5. I'll withdraw this nom, tnx for finding sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 26 August 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.