- 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dragon Queen (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)
I would argue this does not meet WP:GNG and there is also a strong argument regarding WP:NOTPROMOTION. Not sure why this was kept the first time, but to me looks like it should be reevaluated. I don't think either of the sources come close to meeting WP:GNG. Please give your input LikeMeercats (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, multiple reviews available (2 listed in the article, hence why it was kept the first time, btw the pw review is a star one), also - Voice of Youth Advocates Reviews - "Borchardt works her own magic by creating a vastly different Merlin from the star-cloaked graybeard of popular image.", Romantic Times - "Alice Borchardt is a powerful storyteller with a passionate voice that throbs from every page." (also a 2001 Historical Romance of the Year nominee), the ISFDB lists reviews in Interzone, and Vector. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Coolabahapple. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Part of the review was a statement on the author herself, not the book, and I couldn't find the other review that was mentioned in the Amazon link (which should come from the journal, not a mention on Amazon.) IMO fails GNG because there is not "significant coverage". LovelyLillith (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheila Shoup, "Bordchardt, Alice, The Dragon Queen" in "Adult/High School: Fiction" (2002) 48 School Library Journal 154 Google Books. All you have to do to find it is put the quote into Google Books, and it comes up immediately. There are plenty of other reviews and the coverage is obviously significant. James500 (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps the article should have more of the RS "plenty of other reviews" to make it appear to be more noteworthy. As it stands, it does not. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Under WP:NRVE, notability depends on the existence of sources, not their immediate citation in an article. Coolabahapple has cited plenty of other reviews in his !vote above. All of those count towards notability. That said, NBOOK requires precisely two book reviews. As it stands, two book reviews are already cited in the article, making it appear unequivocally notable under the SNG. And GNG does not necessarily require more than one source. QED. James500 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:37, 14 November 2018 (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.