Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memories of the Irish-Israeli War

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. NBOOK shown to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of the Irish-Israeli War

[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)

Fails WP:NBOOK, as I can't find any significant coverage of this novel. The author appears to be non-notable as well, at least as a writer. Unsourced original research. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - incredibly obscure book by obscure writer. NO sources, no assertion of notability whatsoever, just a plot summary with coy euphemisms. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I canx tw reviews of the book here [1] and here [2] and a mention here [3], none given a breakdown to match the page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable. Amazon.com has no reviews whatsoever for a book that has been out for a quarter of a century, and illustrates it with the cover of a completely different book in French. Amazon.co.uk shows a different cover (correct, but obviously computer-generated) and likewise no reviews. Athel cb (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I wouldn't expect Amazon reviews for a book which predates Amazon. Works from the 80s and 90s can be the hardest to find sources for, since the coverage is usually in print which has often not been digitized. This may not be a book which currently attracts much notice, but notability is not temporary, and to my surprise I think it has sufficient reviews to pass NBOOK. I found records of a review by Alison Woodhouse in the Times Literary Supplement, 1995-06-09 (4810), p.27; added to what appear to be reviews in New Scientist, Jewish Quarterly, and Books Ireland above, it seems to exceed the minimums for NBOOK. It would be nice to be able to access the sources in full to confirm that they are full reviews (of at least a paragraph) rather than simply notices of a recently-published book, but the snippets indicate that the reviewer has actually read the work in question. The article is unsourced, but it's also all plot summary, which is assumed to be sourced to the book itself; I don't think it's in such a bad state that WP:DYNAMITE would apply. I expected this to be an obvious delete but I actually think NBOOK supports keeping the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: One review found online and added, in New Scientist, bizarrely. This suggests that there may be more reviews out there in pre-online sources. PamD 08:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a before-the-world-went-online minor phenomenon in its circle. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent detective work above. pburka (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with mulitple reviews as discussed above, btw jstor lists the Books Ireland review here. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article, and also agree as per Coolabahapple's reasoning. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2021 (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.