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. The article may need serious cleanup, but the topic seems to satisfy inclusion criteria in the opinion of the commenters. I'll apply some tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal World[edit]

Animal World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable book, written like a book report or review. Unsourced, no sources found, but Spanish search may turn up something. Possibly redirect to The Animal World, if deemed not notable. ansh666 03:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, seems like my searching skills and/or Spanish are a bit worse than I thought. I still can't shake the feeling that this is a copyvio or something, but Wikipedia mirrors make those nearly impossible to find just by Googling nowadays. At this point, it's looking probably notable, but needs a complete rewrite, and possibly a move to a disambiguated title. ansh666 18:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like it was the focus of this journal article in the Anales de Literatura Hispanoamerican. I'm not entirely familiar with this journal, so I don't know how exclusive they are. It makes it seem like there might be coverage out there, probably in Spanish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• More possible sources: (may add to this as I find them) [1] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This says that it won a national prize, so maybe some more digging can find out what it is? I'll keep looking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This also gives out some hope for coverage, but I can't get a good look at it - plus my Spanish skills are rudimentary at best. It does look like it was on Clarin's "best of" list at some point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll ask for help at the applicable WikiProjects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I came here in response to Tokyogirl79's post. I found two scholarly sources that appear to give this substantial coverage: [2] and [3]. Unfortunately my Spanish is perhaps good enough to find these, but not near good enough to evaluate them: so I'm just going to leave them here for others to look at. I will note, though, that I would tend to consider coverage in two scholarly pieces more than enough to keep. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An English-language review here: Boria Sax. Review of di Benedetto, Antonio, Animal World. H-Nilas, H-Net Reviews. February, 1999. -maclean (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect (change from Keep) to Antonio di Benedetto. The national prize mention and the H-Net review appear to make the book notable, but the current state of the article does not make this topic worthy of inclusion in current form. I agree that the article needs to be completely re-written; the redirect would preserve the history if someone would want to undertake improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep plenty of Spanish Language sources establishing notability and discourse (just added two, but there are dozens in reputable academic journals). @K.e.coffman:'s argument makes no sense: deletion discussions are about notability, quality improvements are not created by burning everything to the ground -- but by leaving comments on the talk page or through tagging, and letting WP:Eventualism kick in. Sadads (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a valid argument, see the essay WP:TNT. That said, it's probably better to stubify than redirect in this case. ansh666 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stubify may be a form of TNT, but that is something you can do without a AFD discussion -- and it was a pretty trivial action to remove the clear Peacock material. As much as these kinds of AFDs do force work on articles -- its not always best use of experienced editors time in many cases. Thanks for entertaining the conversation though! Sadads (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the improved sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 6 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.