Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este sau nu este Ion (3rd 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. Suggestions to redirect an article should not be brought to AFD unless a previous WP:BLAR per policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection has been challenged, cf. the recent discussion at Special:Permalink/852737171#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 06:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Este sau nu este Ion

[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)

One line, none notable book. Suggest redirecting to Herta Müller. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author won a nobel prize for literature. You can't use an essay to reject a guideline, especially when the essay is garbage. James500 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily merge it to the author's page. There's no references used in the article. Plus, there's no indication she won it on /that/ book. Plus the page is just a stub and tells nothing of the book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article. These micro bot-stubs do not serve a purpose. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as nominator states they want this redirected, that discussion should be carried out on the article talkpage not here at afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?, there is a consensus that redirecting may be discussed at AfD. It seems worthwhile to have some further discussion of whether this book is independently notable, or whether it should be redirected to the article on its (very notable) author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Authors do not win a Nobel for a particular book, but for their overall work. (It's not like the Pulitzer). Any full-scale book by a author of such great importance is in my opinion almost certainly notable, and the article should be sourced by those who can work in the appropriate language. I strongly favor redirecting and combining for minor authors. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per DGG and User:James500. Being a stub of a notable topic is not a reason to delete an article. Stubs of notable topics are always better than no articles. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 31 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.