Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey to Portugal

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. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Portugal[edit]

[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)

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's obvious now the nom is simply cut-and-paisting deletion rationale on a AfD fishing expedition for non-English topic articles created years ago with zero regard to WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL-CONTENT (the latter being policy). In less than two seconds I found very in-depth coverage from The New York Times and Publishers Weekly. [1][2] I'm wondering if the nom even read the stub. I should point out that all AfD's generate the page Introduction to deletion process which states, "Nominators for deletion should demonstrate a reasonable level of competence. This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved."--Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has no sources and thus fails verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, per Wikipedia:Notability and specifically WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (bold not mine but in WP:N). How does a topic "fail" verifiability when the topic is verified? --Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not verrified until the sources are in the article. The article needs sources. NEXIST has been abused for too long if you can use it to justify having an article with no sources. If these sources exist, add them to the article. Letting articles sit with no sources is a sign that they are not notable. In fact NEXIST is really an excuse for laziness. To bring up counters to no sources in deletion debates, you should at least have to put them in the article. In this case, you have failed to do such. There is no vefifying if the article has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, so you don't believe the topic's existence is verified until you see coverage in its English Wikipedia article? You really think The New York Times made up his and his book's existence? You're WP:POINT opinion on EXIST is noted, but if you'd like to change Wikipedia:Notability, you need to make a case in the WP:N talk page, not push your agenda on an Afd. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, you there? Really trying to understand your logic here. You don't believe an topic's existence is verified unless you see sources in it's English Wikipedia article?--Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a section on critical assessment of the book, along with references to the two reviews that Oakshade found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a third reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to sources already mentioned, this book was reviewed in World Literature Today (JSTOR 40157243), The Washington Post[3], New Statesman[4], and The Spectator[5], among others. --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the above demonstrations of notability, which cover WP:NBOOKS #1. Mortee (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG by a wide margin with many periodical book reviews. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, José Saramago, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). James500 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2018 (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.