Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kommandant's Girl

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 redirect to Pam Jenoff. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kommandant's Girl

[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 about a novel, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for novels. The notability claim on offer here is that it was nominated for (but did not win) a defunct minor literary award -- but that's completely unsourced, which is a problem because authors' PR agents frequently whitewash the distinction between "nominated in the sense of having been submitted to the awards committee for consideration" (which is not a notability claim at all) and "nominated in the sense of actually making the committee's shortlist" (which is a potential notability claim, but still depends on the importance of the award and the GNG-worthiness of the sourcing that can be shown to support the statement). And the only footnotes present in the article at all are the author's own self-published website about herself and a deadlinked review on a non-notable blog, which is not GNG-building coverage.
So an unsourced assertion that the book was nominated for a minor award is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a book from having to have any secondary sources, but even on a Google search I'm still just finding bookstores and blogs rather than GNG-worthy reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is very weak, I don't see how this meets WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) PS. I've expanded on my rationale a bit lower and changed my vote to weak delete for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is notable, but there's little coverage for this debut work. Most of the coverage I can see is of the "This author's new work is great, oh yeah, she also published those books". Looks to be your typical case of someone achieving notability slowly over time, but not enough to where people go back and review their early works. At most this could redirect to the author's article but I don't know that this is really something that would be a common search term. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The current sources are a nomination for a minor award (failing WP:NBOOK criteria 2) and blogs, insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. My WP:BEFORE found a couple of trivial mentions while discussing newer books, e.g., 1, though I did find two reviews, 1, 2. The first ref's review page states that All of Jewish Book Council’s reviewers are volunteers, though tere are some submission policies here and about page. Still, the review leans on the shorter side and debatably qualifies for RS. The latter seems to have limited editorial policies, though it does have a Wikipedia page as well at Historical Novel Society. Piotrus and ReaderofthePack, are the two references WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV in your opinion, which IMO are debatable? Nevertheless, even if these two references are reliable and SIGCOV (which probably is, as these reviews exceed 100 words and are not excluded per WP:GNG as minor news stories or routine coverage), notability still seems to be borderline at best, so I'm at weak delete. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Good finds. Whether JBC reviews are subject to any review is a question (note that it ends with the out of place word "Acknowledgements", suggest copypaste of some form that wasn't proofread?). It also is so short it reads like the book's official plot summary and contains next to no analysis. The second review seems better (lenght, analysis) and it appears in a magazine that seems to have a review process, so I think it's fine. So right now we have one ok source (a reliable review), and one weak review. Can anyone find one more good source? I'd reconsider my vote then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect. Since the series (the book is first part in a series of at least three books?) is set in Poland and was translated to Polish (as "Dziewczyna komendanta"), I checked for reliable Polish reviews but I couldn't find anything better that user/blog reviews. I found a passing mention in one academic work ([1]) but that doesn't meet SIGCOV, the book is just mentioned as part of a genre. This English source, according to a snippet view, states the book "was an international bestseller and nominated for a Quill Award", but that fails SIGCOV, at least, in the snippet I see. Few other mentions I saw were snippets too. Weak delete for now (since VK found one ok-ish source). Or maybe redirect to author's biography, better than hard deletion. Do ping me if anyone finds more good sources and I'll reconsider my vote. PS. I also looked into the Quill Award, which doesn't strike me as very significant - it lasted just three years, and the book was just nominated for it. The author's biography mention that the book was nominated for that award, and that is pretty much all we can say about this entity at this point, I think. We can add the reliable review VK found as a source to the author's bio and move on, unless more sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO redirect is plausible, though User:ReaderofthePack's point that the title is not a common search time might also be valid. Pinging them and User:Bearcat as well for their opinions on the sources. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definitive opinion on Blogcritics, mostly because I tend to avoid using them. They have an editorial staff and vetting process of some sort for writers, which is good, but I'm just leery of them for some reason. Probably the word "blog" in their title, but the broken html in their contact page doesn't really give off trustworthy vibes. I prefer not to use PW because they're kind of borderline. They're still considered to be a RS at the moment, but they're not the strongest possible sources. If it were say, Booklist or Horn Book Guide I'd be more likely to endorse those since those tend to have a bit more oomph behind them. (Booklist is run by the ALA & HBG is known for being pretty choosy.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to use PW because they're kind of borderline- as in Publishers Weekly? It is certainly WP:RS but the reviews, like the ones from Kirkus, does lean on the shorter side at e.g., 100 to 200 words; and their reviews are less selective compared to major newspapers. Nevertheless, I personally think these reviews borderline meet WP:SIGCOV but I get that everyone's interpretation is different. VickKiang (talk) 20:24, 28 November 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kommandant's Girl

The Kommandant's Girl

zproxy.org