Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Intimate Knowledge of the Night

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 redirect to Terry Dowling. Consensus is to merge, but the content is currently unsourced and thus unsuitable for merging. Closing as redirect to allow a merger from the article history if somebody also adds sources in the course of the merger. Sandstein 06:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Intimate Knowledge of the Night

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amazon.com and Worldcat show no professional reviews. Worldcat shows only 30 libraries worldwide holding the book (25 in Australia, home country of the author). The only minor evidence of notability I could find is that one of the stories in the book ("Flashmen") also appeared in the collection The Year's Best Australian Science Fiction and Fantasy. This isn't enough to justify notability of the book however (especially as that story also first appeared in a separate magazine) as that wasn't a judged book but rather just a typical yearly publishers collection. No mentions in Google Scholar other than the aforementioned collection. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify, I don't believe that the author meets the special criteria carved out in WP:NBOOK #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The only way I could see it meeting this requirement would be if Dowling is routinely taught in literature courses in Austalia; I'm not even sure how one would prove that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge Not independently notable. I too have been unable to find reviews. (I declined a imminent PROD to give myself time to check ). The only reliable way of making reasonably certain there are no reviews is to check both of the two professional indexes, Book Review Digest and Book Review Index, It is unfortunately necessary to check both of them, and though most large public libraries have them they are often not accessible outside the library. I recognize that many Wikipedians do not have convenient access, but I suggest that all libraries now have internet of chat references services that ought to be able and willing to answer question like these. Until people get used to doing it I shall probably have to check all book articles that come here, . There are no other comprehensive sources, but there are sources that will often find reviews: . For popular works, reviews can often be found in Google News Archive., and for academic books, reviews included in the many J-STOR journals are listed in WorldCat. As an extremely unfortunate indexing decision, Google Scholar has a current policy of not usually including book reviews, except if they have been cited by articles it otherwise includes. -- :As for being an author all of whose works should be included, I agree he's not at that point yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2011 (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.