Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Sky and Earth

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) Rollidan (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Sky and Earth (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)

Jamie Zeppa (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)

Poorly sourced article about a book whose only substantive notability claim is winning a minor award from a smalltown literary festival that is not a notability clincher in and of itself, and an equally poorly sourced article about its author, which itself makes no notability claim besides the existence of this book. As always, every award that exists on earth is not always an automatic notability freebie -- notability because awards attaches to major national awards that get regular press coverage, on the level of the Governor-General's Awards or the Pulitzer or Booker Prizes, and not just to every small-fry award that exists. But of the 13 footnotes in the book article, six are metareferencing the book to itself, which do not constitute support for its notability; three are needless reduplication of a single review in a travel guide; two are needless reduplication of a single review on a non-notable and unreliable blog; and one is a piece of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown newspaper -- and the only source in her BLP is a glancing namecheck of her existence at the end of a blurb about somebody else in a listicle. None of this is enough sourcing to get either the book or the author over WP:GNG, but the "Banff Mountain Book Festival" is not an "inherently" notable award that would exempt them from having to have much better sourcing than this just because the word "award" is involved. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEFORE failure. 1st book was published in 1999 and widely reviewed. Have added some of the reviews to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• possibly MERGE Earth and Sky to authorJamie Zeppa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jamie Zeppa because her "other" book was reviewed and Earth and Sky has had some ongoing attention. More soruces for her bio and for both books exist, enough, certainly, to keep a page on this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both articles, keep author and keep the book, Beyond the Sky and Earth, too. It made quite a splash: feature articles, reviews. Here is the review in the New York times: [1]. Other reviews ran in the Chicago Tribune, Globe and Mail. That said, the article it sub-standard, amateurishly written, badly sourced. Nevertheless, both book and writer are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the book. This is my first interaction with AfD, so I don't eif I'm doing this wrong. I edit Bhutanese articles, and I found this AfD from there. It's pretty clear that the book is notable. It has a review in Publisher's Weekly and as pointed out above, in the NYT. It satisfies the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. I'm not familiar with notability criteria for people to say anything about the author. TryKid (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability criteria for people are documented at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Geolodus (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both articles. Both her books easily meet WP:NBOOK with multiple detailed independent reviews in credible publications. This makes the case for "sustained critical attention" under WP:AUTHOR so we should keep the author article as well. Those articles sure could use some work, though. Haukur (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Both articles are woefully bad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, adequate review by Adam Goodheart in The New York Times, and the other ones in CT, and Globe mentioned by E.M.Gregory are enough, add to these Kirkus - "An uneven account with many perceptive, lyrical passages.", PW - "Zeppa's story is nearly an inversion of the ancient Buddhist tale of Siddhartha ... a lively tale of her earnest efforts to reconcile what she has learned with what she has known.", Booklist - "Zeppa's description of the terrain is breathtaking; her description of adaptation, growth, and transformation is both comforting and inspirational.", and Library Journal - "Her story reads like a good novel; even her youthful naivete has charm. .. Highly recommended." (yes, trade reviews are ok for notability, and no, they do not "review everything" (remark regularly/incorrectly seen at afd)), and this book is wikinotable (and as is stated in afds ad naseum ("often by you, coola") a badly written article does not make a subject non-notable). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, cheeky of nominator in their opening statement to insert the seemingly innocuous word "national" to "major awards", some may think this is a WP:NBOOK requirement, its not, no. 2 states "The book has won a major literary award.", no mention of "national".Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2019 (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.