Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dating Hamlet

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. Michig (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Hamlet

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

Non-notable novel, by author that also fails to meet general notability guidelines. A quick search netted just two references worth mentioning; and given the amount of coverage even the most obscure detail gets in Shakespeare studies, that's a pretty poor showing. Xover (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ as nominator. But I picked AfD instead of PROD for this because I'm somewhat on the fence and open to being persuaded otherwise. --Xover (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the Kirkus review cited in the article, this was also reviewed in Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal. There are also quite a few Google Scholar hits showing nontrivial discussion in substantive sources. Standard Google searches just aren't reliably reliable for assessing notability of relatively contemporary books. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, could you add the sources you found to the article's talk page, or in Further reading, to make it easier for future editors to expand the article if it is kept? --Xover (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge to Lisa Fiedler might be plausible if that page existed (or is created). This is a young adult fiction novel; Shakespeare isn't really relevant here. I have no idea how to assess notability here, I think something beyond "has a Kirkus review" is necessary but am not sure what. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems fine to me. A quick search revealed 3,810 relevant articles, many of them with glowing reviews. I feel that the genre that this author publishes in may be what is causing some people to balk, however juvenile fiction is an important genre as well. Jefstevens (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the reviews were glowing or not isn't really relevant, and the number of hits on Google by itself tells us nothing. If you found substantial coverage anywhere then please note the specific sources so that they can be used to improve the article. --Xover (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as a few journal reviews[1], there's coverage in various scholarly books and articles e.g.[2][3][4] plus other paywalled texts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 8 January 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.