Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romiette and Julio

: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. The consensus is that the subject meets the notability guideline, with sufficient sources available (just barely). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Romiette and Julio]]=

:{{la|Romiette and Julio}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romiette and Julio}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Romiette and Julio}})

Non-notable book, I can't find a single reliable source. Woogee (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are reliable sources, including [http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/12/19/reviews/991219.rv124728.html NYT], and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1990&as_user_hdate=2010&q=Romiette+and+Julio+by+Sharon+M.+Draper+&scoring=a&q=Romiette+and+Julio+by+Sharon+M.+Draper+&lnav=od&btnG=Go others] —siroχo 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Can you tell us what the Times article says? Just a synopsis. Woogee (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

::* Visit the article via the [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Romiette+and+Julio%22 Google News] links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.87 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:::* It's a basic review; some opinions and a plot summary. I'd call it a "mixed" review. Studerby (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm conflicted on this one; the primary applicable standard is "multiple non-trivial published works". It looks as if the author's previous work was notable enough that this got a few reviews on the author's name, including the NYT one; the couple I dredged up for free were mixed and pretty minimal. However, the book seems to have developed a small fanbase and got used in at least some classroom instruction (see [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED467681&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED467681 here]. ATM, I'd call it a marginal delete, but I keep changing my mind. Folks more active with books in WP than I should make the call. Studerby (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Week keep - this was a difficult one. Apart from the coverage generated during its first release in 2005, the book seems to have developed a small cult fan base and from Gnews seems to be chosen for school reading lists.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.