Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire of the Sea Light

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 snow keep. An NAC close this early is unconventional, but, regardless of whether the article was moved out of user space too early, it's been very clearly demonstrated that the subject meets the first criterion of WP:NBOOKS. Given that the notability is not contentious, and the content of the article such as it is is fine, there's no reason to delete it simply because it's a stub. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claire of the Sea Light

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

I do not see how this novel meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). I still want the community consensus so that no detail lefts out. Mr RD 21:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a novel by a major, award-winning novelist, and it takes only few seconds to Google the title and see extensive critical discussion of this book in sources like The New York Times [1][2], The Guardian [3], San Francisco Chronicle [4], Boston Globe [5], National Public Radio [6], Los Angeles Times [7], etc., etc., etc. The article needs improving but it is obviously, overwhelmingly notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which is why I sent a stale draft to mainspace on it recently while working from my phone. It is really hard to add refs on the phone, but the title was already redlinked and the artist is very notable. Clearly a good topic that can be built out. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:TROUT to Legacypac for moving it to mainspace before it was sufficiently referenced. This appears to have been an utterly avoidable AfD. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: See below, it is actually the second time this page has been moved to the mainspace by the same user before it was sufficiently referenced. Perhaps a double trout (and that's if we only focus on this particular page move)?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and move back to the user namespace User:Accuratezza/Claire of the Sea Light if it still isn't suitable by the end of this discussion. I reverted the move when the page was originally moved to the mainspace by Legacypac; it clearly wasn't ready when it was moved the first time. They moved it back again (page history). Moves from the userspace to the mainspace should not be done unless the page is suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meets the core content policies). Alternatively, Keep.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both my moves to mainspace were to improve and expand the encyclopia. Moving a good stub back into userspace without doing any due diligence is wrong [8]. That is disruptive and does not improve the encylopedia. Refs are nice, but it's a book stub that is interlinked with the obviously notable author's page, making it essentially a subpage of the author. There are hundreds of thousands of pages in the project with no references that have existed a lot longer then a few hours you could go target instead of stalking my edits because you failed to get me sanctioned at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, (initially i thought this was a joke afd but it was put up a day early) this book easily meets WP:NBOOK, just have a look at the amazon (although we don't use for notability it can be a good starting place in the quest for reviews) entry here [9] which lists about 30 reviews including from Booklist, New York Times, New York Daily News, Huffington, San Francisco Chronicle, Entertainment Weekly, Ebony, Kirkus, The Washington Post Book World, Miami Herald, The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times Book Review, Publishers Weekly. Also, in the first 30 hits of a gsearch under "Claire of the Sea Light edwidge reviews", in addition to the reviews listed above by Arxiloxos, there are also reviews from The Southeast Review - "Danticat successfully challenges the idea of a monolithic story and shows that a person’s biography exists within the context of a community ... Danticat also brings to question the singularity of history by privileging multiple voices."[10], World Literature Today - "Claire of the Sea Light is not Danticat’s best work. Too many of the novel’s pages roil in her characters’ disconsolate ruminations. Still, the fiction holds because its chief suspense—concern for the runaway child and curiosity about what she will do—holds. Also, it ends brilliantly."[11], The Washington Times - "That Ms. Danticat can evoke possibility so powerfully in this attractive child testifies to her literary gifts: her lucid prose, her wide-ranging references, her sharpness of focus."[12], Harvard Review Online - "Resisting sentimentality or oversimplification, Danticat creates a series of stories that weave seamlessly into each other, each story answering questions conjured by those that precede it."[13], The Dallas Morning News - "Claire is set in May 2009 and imagines Haiti nine months before the life-grinding 2010 earthquake. Made from that wreckage, Danticat’s Claire is a bleak and beautiful “collage à clef.”"[14], Palimpsest: A Journal on Women, Gender, and the Black International - "Danticat paints the portrait of a town in peril, which can be read as a microcosm for life in Haiti"[15]. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice amount of secondary source coverage shown here. — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2016 (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.