Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flutter, Flutter, Butterfly

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flutter, Flutter, Butterfly

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod removed and replaced with a long plot summary and a Facebook source. Wikipedia is not a means to promote a new book. As per WP:NOTPROMOTION Domdeparis (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article seeking to misuse the encyclopaedia for clearly promotional purpose: "Please do not hesitate to join us so that we can help to offer solace ... Even a small contribution will help bring peace ... Please help, join us ...". This is not a platform for soliciting money or righting wrongs. I am flagging this as a CSD G11. Aside from that, neither a link to Facebook nor to a failed Kickstarter nor to the text published via a self-publishing firm establishes WP:NBOOK notability and I am not seeing better. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did hesitate about a G11 myself but sometimes a deletion discussion means that each time the article is recreated (and something tells me this might be) we can G4 it each time, but either way this article has to go I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the CSD template as it's not totally promotional; there's a book, it exists. It's not yet notable though. fish&karate 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This book just isn't notable yet. Searching for references to it in WP:RS is difficult in English because there's a nursery rhyme with the same name, and lots of associated hits, but I couldn't find anything which is related to this book and is independent of the author in the first few pages. Given its topic, I rather hope the book becomes notable in time but at the moment, it's not. Neiltonks (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, it is clear the page largely exists as promotion for the English translation of the novel. Even the "Background" section is a copypaste of the back cover blurb: [1]. The problem is that in order to evaluate the notability of this book, we have to judge not just the English translation, but the original Korean novel, since there is a possibility it has notability (earning a translation into another language can be an indication of notability). Unfortunately, this page is so poorly done it doesn't make it clear what the original novel was. I can only assume looking at the English wiki page on the author Eun Mihee that it is her 2009 novel Butterfly, Butterfly: 나비야 나비야. The author page links to this news article on the book: [2]. I can find a few other articles ([3], [4], etc.) but my Korean is close to zero, so I can't do much with this. I would appreciate the participation of someone who kknows Korean. Michitaro (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you, before nominating and since nominating I tried to see if this was a translation of Butterfly Butterfly but the links on the author's page are very poorly done and do not link to the correct book. Chrome does a basic translation of the pages which gives the general gist. There are interviews with her in Korean about the writing of this book but they all date from 2016 if I remember rightly so I don't believe it is a translation of a previous book. Domdeparis (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is a translation, since the cover mentions the translator. It would be rather unusual for an author who seems to be fairly popular in Korea to have written a full-length novel in Korean only for English translation, but the page (or the publisher's website, for that matter) does not make it clear. I tried to find the Library of Congress record, which will often give the original title of a book if it has been translated, but this does not have an LOC record yet. It is not in WorldCat either. Michitaro (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it is a selfpublished book and a failed crowdfunded project it is possible that it won't be there for a while. Domdeparis (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know I'm repeating others' comments, but this book is new, not notable by any WP criteria for notability, not widely read, and self-published. There is nothing that is independent of the subject itself, and its page is an advertisement. Ira Leviton (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2017 (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.