Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champa (novel)

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Champa (novel)

[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)

Non-notable novel, fails WP:NBOOK. There was a reference in a previous version, but it is to a predatory journal and is not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons noted above. Unreliable citation. Fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes WP:BOOKCRIT#5 as a book by Laxmi Prasad Devkota. GNG-wise, This is a full-length analysis by a recognised critic. It references another 12-page work on the subject. That makes two (incidentally, also a pass of WP:BKCRIT#1). As the only novel from Devkota, it is covered to a varying degree in almost all if not all major works about Devkota as well as those about Nepali novels. I found this and this that seem to have SIGCOV going by the snippets which is all google would give me. I think anyone who looks at search results for this novel in google books will come convinced that it meets BOOKCRIT and GNG just from the context in which it is mentioned even when only in passing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Laxmi Prasad Devkota. As the author's sole novel, it should be described within his biography. The new references identified are only passing mentions of the novel itself and don't suggest that substantial expansion is possible. Author page is missing details in the article like ISBN, publisher, etc. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spasemunki, with all due respect, if you are going to call me a liar, you'll have to do better. In what universe could this 2,500 word critique possibly be just a passing mention? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is calling you a liar. I can't read Nepali so I can't verify the source, but a single essay-length review is still not a substantial basis for expansion or notability given that the other two sources you provided are indeed only passing mentions. If there are additional substantial sources in Nepali that's another situation, but a single essay on a random website wouldn't be sufficient under normal circumstances. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you discounted sources that you couldn't personally verify; that was not at all clear from your original comment. Would you care to quote the full extent of coverages present in the two books that you say are only passing mentions? Because it really looks to me like, especially the first one has definite SIGCOV. The snippet itself is almost already it, and it ends with the last available sentence still ongoing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The search gives me the index on the first source, which indicates it is only mentioned on a single page, which appears to be providing a brief plot summary while discussing a similar novel by another author. The second source includes it in two lists and summarizes another source which calls it 'incomplete', but there is no index entry. Since you can read Nepali, it would be helpful if you could characterize the website hosting the review- is it a reliable source? Who is the 'recognized critic'? The guidelines require two 'non-trivial' published works regarding the topic- the two Google book sources both appear to be trivial inclusion. With regards to criteria #5, the current wiki article on Devkota doesn't establish that the author and his works are a 'common subject of academic study'. So far there is no indication that is the case in English-language media, but if there is sufficient sourcing in Nepali then that would bear consideration. Again, in whatever language a 2500 word essay would only be a WP:SINGLESOURCE, and only if the website is reliable source. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't access those books either but are choosing to assume the coverage is trivial? And you won't take me at my word for anything I've said so far, but want me to tell you more anyway? That's just self-contradictory standards. I have no interest to go hunting for your goalpost, especially as you argue from a position of complete ignorance. You'll have to either assume good faith with the evidence given, or you'll have to buy a book, any book, on Nepali literature yourself, and see that Devkota is considered one of the greatest writers (or actually the greatest, depending) in a language spoken by tens of millions people. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeing with you 90% by suggesting a merge rather than delete, but when I try to help you improve the case by suggesting how to contextualize the Nepali sources to make a better argument, you attack me. If Devkota is famous enough to be covered under guideline #5, then it ought to be possible to provide sources that attest to his widespread fame and coverage by academics, whether in English or Nepali. Currently, his fame is sourced in the article about him by two links to blogs. WP:V and WP:EVERYBODYKNOWS aren't overridden by WP:AGF, and it isn't good faith to attack the user rather than engage with their points. The index entries in the Google Books results suggest only incidental coverage in those sources. The onus is on you to provide evidence of significant coverage sufficient to support a standalone article, rather than just asserting that something is self-evident. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even! Here's the bottom-line: I wouldn't have needed to say anything to begin with, and would have happily left it to the closer to try and make sense of your arguments, had you not based it upon a demonstrably false claim (that sources I gave were just passing mentions) in direct reference to my comment. Don't make irresponsible comments like that when you are in a position to influence the fate of an article contributed in good faith by someone else, and you'll hear no complaints from me. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book is also available online [1] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editor calling from the red telephone. The author is a major literary figure. pburka (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've asked for help on WP:NEPAL on finding sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also finding quite a bit of evidence that this novel has been discussed in literary sources - I've added a couple to the article. I can only get a snippet view, but what I'm seeing indicates that the book is discussed at enough length to be considered in-depth. I'm not familiar with Nepalese publishers, but the authors of these books look to be reliable sources in and of themselves. Both Paras Mani Pradhan and Abhi Subedi are seen as literary icons and critics of renown, for example. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same sources Usedtobecool linked- as I mentioned above, the index and search results indicate that there is a page or less in each of those sources. Reliable sources, but not extensive coverage as required by criteria #1. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something to keep in mind is that most of the coverage will likely be in Nepalese and a good chunk of it won't be online, given the time period this was released. As such, this looks to be one of those rare situations where I'm leaning towards whether or not the available online coverage (and the notability of the author) can argue that there is more coverage out there. I haven't made my own official judgement yet, but I'm leaning towards there being coverage given what I've seen so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is <Pradhan, Pratap Chandra (2066 BS). ‘Devkota's Novel "Champa" : A Literary Study’. Bhrikuti. Vol 5. pp. 243–254> cited in this, as mentioned above. That's enough evidence to convince me that there is a 12-page work wholly about this novel that we don't have access to. And, the novel was just translated into Hindi, 70 years after it was written. If that is not evidence of lasting notability, I don't what is. But really this is just so notable per BOOKCRIT#5 that I feel ridiculous to have to continue to make a case for it (WP:AGF, WP:NPOSSIBLE, WP:BIAS). Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge the article is somewhat light on content and is borderline on passing the WP:GNG, but it is at least verifiable in some reliable sources, and could easily be merged into an article about the author. Archrogue (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note If the article is kept, predatory journals should not be cited to support anything in this article. It is now the third time I'm removing this citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here, a book published by an American press, written by a westerner with a Wikipedia article in English language says—
When a truly great poet appears during an important phase in the development of a particular literature, the fortunes of that literature are changed forever. All poets who follow are bound to the traditions that their great predecessor has established, even if it is only in the sense that these become the conventions against which they rebel, the norms from which they make their departures. The contributions made to the development of Nepali poetry by Bhanubhakta, Bhatta, Lekhnath, and Sama have been fundamental, yet Devkota stands head and shoulders above all of these. An American scholar of comparative literature has written, "In Devkota we see the entire Romantic era of Nepali literature" (Rubin 1980, 5), but this is an oversimplification or even an understatement. In Nepali, Devkota's works have formed a colossal touchstone and are the undisputed classics of his language.
In the short space of twenty-five years Devkota produced more than forty books, and his works included plays, stories, essays, translations from world literature, a novel, and poems that ranged in length from a 4-line rhyme to an epic of 1,754 verses. His writings were certainly extraordinarily profuse, but they were also remarkable for their intellectual and creative intensity. Devkota rarely returned to a poem to revise or edit, being in too great a hurry to commence his next composition, nor was he averse to using little-known dialect words to enrich his vocabulary. As a result, some poems suffer from obscurities that puzzle even the most scholarly Nepali reader. Nevertheless, little that Devkota wrote would now be considered dispensable.(emphasis mine)
Is that enough for WP:BOOKCRIT#C5? If not, please tell me why that criterion even exists, since we don't need it to justify keeping works of Shakespeare and Milton? Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the two sources currently in the article, which strongly suggest that more may be available. I just removed a third source which looks like a copyright violation. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2020 (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.