Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bride of the Plains

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. Sourcing has been IDed that addresses both the nom and delete !votes. Star Mississippi 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Bride of the Plains

[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)

Article has been unsourced since at least 2020. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: I also could not find any RSes about this novel. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Keep - Articles on books are are formatted differently. I added a source for the first paragraph. No sources are required for the Plot section. I added an external link to the book on Project Gutenberg, which provides many online links to this book. — Maile (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you need something that talks about the book, a review or a scholarly study. Simply existing isn't enough for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66: Can you explain what you mean when you say, "Articles on books are are formatted differently"? I understand that the plot section does not require a source. However, books still need to meet certain notability requirements, as explained in WP:NBOOK. I do not see those requirements being met for A Bride of the Plains--at least not as the article is currently written. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no critical notice of the book, no scholarly discussion of it; [1] briefly mentioned here. Nothing in Jstor, no sort of critical reviews found. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Hungary, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sourcing that meets WP:RS, aka also fails WP:SIGCOV

Cray04 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An LOC newspaper search only brings up one ad in NY newspaper for the book when it was for sale [2], trivial coverage Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK, reviewed in NYTimes, Boston Evening Transcript, The Courier-Journal (All via TWL). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per ARandomName123. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (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.