Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Family's Slave

:{{la|My Family's Slave}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My_Family%27s_Slave Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|My Family's Slave}})

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This article received a lot of press in May and June for its publication as the June 2017 cover story ... and now what? Enduring notability is not verified. Yoninah (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Snow keep I'm afraid I don't understand the deletion rationale. It's a new book, yes, but one that seems to rather easily meet criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK. And notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The nominator is bemoaning the lack of reviews... from the future? It meets WP:N now, which is all it needs to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:*It's not a book, it's an article. Does every cover story in the Atlantic merit a Wikipedia page? Of course not. At best, it should be merged to the author's page, Alex Tizon. Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:::Ah, missed that, sorry. Yes, an article is going to have have a much tougher time in terms of justifying a standalone article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

::::Oh and as it has not (yet) been published in book form, I've removed :Category:Works originally published in The Atlantic (magazine) in favour of :Category:The Atlantic (magazine) articles. There are several other articles in that category but of course this one needs to be judged on its own merits, regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the categories. All the other articles listed under :Category:The Atlantic (magazine) articles have many more years under their belt and the Wikipedia pages explain why they are of lasting significance. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This is a highly notable work that received tons of worldwide media coverage (both positive and negative) and sparked significant debate in several countries when it was published as the main cover story of The Atlantic earlier this year, and this nomination comes very close to a frivolous nomination. The article obviously meets WP:GNG as the subject of "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail." --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, Yoninah's concern is clearly WP:SUSTAINED in addition to citing WP:NOTNEWS. My response, I suppose, is that we have no crystal ball with which to gauge that, now. So I'd default to GNG for something that does clearly have enough coverage, at this time, with anyone free to revisit this at a later date -- but keeping in mind WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep GNG is met. WP:NTEMP. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Agree, keep it. There were Millions of events that were notable at some point but are not now. Chrisswill (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.