Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted Boy (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Boy

[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)

just plot; zero evidence of notability, no obvious book reviews beyond those listed in first afd, which are not substantial. ; few holdings in worldcat for this or his other books. , too old to draftify. Note; there are other works with the same title, DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the sources found in the previous AfD. The Pink Paper review, Gay Scotland review, and Publishers Weekly review are each a full paragraph solely on the book, perfectly normal review length. The Gay Times review is three paragraphs / a full column, an unusually substantial review for a newspaper at this time. This is plenty of sourcing for WP:NBOOK, even if the sources are not present in the article (per WP:NEXIST). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some edits to the article and have just noticed that the Gay Times review is actually about this book's sequel-- but it also calls Enchanted Boy one of GMP's best-selling titles. My !vote is still keep, plus folding coverage of the sequel into this article.~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a paragraph in Gay Times here, and another here (where Graeme Wollaston calls it one of two 'books of the year'). A two-page feature on Ritchie has some discussion Enchanted Boy and its sequel Enchanted Youth. Three paragraphs on the sequel in Pink Paper. One short para on the sequel in The Observer. Mention of both books in his obituary. Editorial calling it the second-best-selling book by GMP (not a RS contributing to notability, as a letter to the editor, but interesting & maybe useful for the article). Overall I think it would be plausible but a bit of a stretch to split this book & its sequel (referred to in the Gay Times profile as a "two-part autobiography") into two separate articles, but together in one article there is more than enough coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RS seems ok - Notable positive reviews in the gay press and other media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable book that was reviewed and reported about in some of the most important LGBTQI+ publications in the English speaking world. I'm sure there are more sources offline, too. Missvain (talk) 23:20, 22 December 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.