Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracles of Life

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. John254 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miracles of Life

Miracles of Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Aside from being a near-duplicate of its author's article (an autobiography, and all that) it totally fails to meet WP:BK, and in addition, doesn't even attempt to assert notability. A speedy-tag was contested. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't see the logic in this statement: what do you expect the plot of an autobiography be? Ballard is one of the most important living British authors, and I cannot see why his recent autobiography should not have its own page. Besides, there was already a link in the page on Ballard. The autobiography is quite important as it clarifies some aspects of his previous semiautobiographical works, Empire and Kindness, and offers relevant information about the life of the author. --James.kerans (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - I don't expect the plot to be anything other; I just think that the article is useless. Anyway, please read this page and follow the instructions on how to assert the article's importance; your paragraph here isn't really much better, I'm afraid. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep A book by JG Ballard is notable. Any issues with the quality of the article should be dealt with by editing it.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - Well, quoting from the page you suggested, J.G. Ballard is so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. There are 3 academic monographs on him in print, one of from Liverpool University Press, one from Manchester UP. Two other book-length essays on him are forthcoming. Not many living British authors have been so honored by academic critics. Nonetheless, I have added five (5) external links to websites of important British newspapers that have reviewed the book, and have stated its importance. In case you are not knowledgeable of the author, please visit this website http://www.ballardian.com/. All this discussion is slightly surreal. We are not talking about a minor writer; we are talking about someone whose works have been translated all around the world, a contemporary classic, and the publication of his autobiography is a literary event. Surely the entry that I have create is far, very far from perfect, but that the idea that an entry on Miracles of Life is deleted, not improved, is--well, let's say that it's rather funny. --James.kerans (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A live person historically significant? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment suggest you read WP:BK , Ballard is a major figure in modern English writing. This article fits more than one criteria in WP:BK. It is a fait accompli that the article won't be deleted.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - Is that all you can answer to my reply? Yessir, historically relevant as he is already part of British literary history. An international conference on Ballard was held last year in Norwich, at the local university, with guests from several countries, and that--once again, I repeat it--is proof of Ballard importance in the literary environment and beyond it. --James.kerans (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Where to begin! 5 reviews in the biggest British broadsheets means this topic meets WP:NOTE by a landslide. The author is so notable that all his works would be notable even without secondary sources. It is inexplicable that the nominator would have nominated this article for deletion had thy any idea who Ballard is. I recommend a swift face-saving withdrawal of the nomination. скоморохъ 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I don't think it's important enough or idiosyncratic enough to need a separate article from its author/subject; unless you can say something besides "this is his life as described in our article on him", what's the point? But the reviews make it notable, so whether or not to merge here is editorial discretion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Actually there are missing elements also in the autobiography, and much of the added value of the book is that there Ballard comments on the envents of his life that have been already told, in a slightly or heavily different form, in Kindness and Empire; plus he adds information on his family he had never disclosed before, including pictures. As I have already said, the entry is far from complete, but this is a matter of editing, not deleting or merging.--James.kerans (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 213.140.21.227 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And why on Earth is that worth more than a couple lines in J.G. Ballard? Yes, the book has added value, but you can say that in a sentence. I'd say that saying the article isn't complete is missing the issue; the plot dump needs to be removed and an explanation of what's notable and interesting about the book itself needs to be added. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The notability of the book is clear, given Ballard's status and its importance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The external links to reviews show that this autobiography is very notable. Bláthnaid 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Any book by J. G. Ballard is notable, and the referenced reviews (of which there are sure to be more, given that the book was published very recently) just confirm that. Klausness (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the reviews. DGG (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - multiple reviews give it WP:RS's and satisfy WP:V & WP:NOTE. But a book is not notable just because of whom it was written by as some may suggest. That would be inherited notability. WP does not recognise that. (PS. WP:BK only allows it to disreguard the above if it "is a subject of common classroom study", which is never stated or proven.) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken; WP:BK offers five conditions, all of which are sufficient and not necessary to establish notability. Criteria 5 states that "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." Being a source of classroom study is merely cited as an example of how this might apply. Regards, скоморохъ 09:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But he is, in fact, a subject of common classroom study. Here's just one syllabus I found: [1]. And there's plenty more out there... Klausness (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. And once you have mentioned in the Article that he is the "subject of common classroom study", allong with a Ref, there will be no doubt in this AfD. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the main J. G. Ballard article already has plenty of evidence that he's so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable. As скоморохъ quite correctly points out, being the subject of common classroom study is just one example of how this might be shown (and, in any case, this would be more appropriately shown in the main J. G. Ballard article rather than in an article about one of his books). And given the large number of reliable sources currently cited in the article (between 8 and 11, depending on your threshold of reliability), this book would clearly count as notable even if the author was not otherwise notable. Klausness (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have to vote for merge to Ballard. At the moment notability for this outside of being a source for his life is skimpy; As it stands, it tucks neatly into his own article. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How is non-trivial coverage in 5 reliable sources "skimpy" notability? скоморохъ 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already been reviewed in just about every major newspaper in the UK (which appears to be the only country in which the book has been released so far). That hardly seems like skimpy notability. Klausness (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reliable sources are eight now. The book has its own literary value, is is not just a source for Ballard's life. This should be discussed in the entry, but could not be done if it is eliminated.--James.kerans (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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.