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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anil's Ghost[edit]

Anil's Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This page consists entirely of original research and has been tagged as such since 2007. The novel by itself is not notable and doesn't merit its own article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This novel received critical reviews and/or coverage in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, The New York Times, Quill & Quire, The Guardian, and much more. The Google Scholar link above reveals hundreds more sources. Easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as DanCherek cited the book is notable. The article should be properly cited. STRONG KEEP. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 06:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, satisfies the requirements of WP:NBOOK. Dan arndt (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The novel won the Giller Prize and the Governor General's Award. These are the two most prestigious literary awards in Canada. -- asilvering (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep this (and it looks like we are), can we at least agree it needs to be substantially trimmed down? At this point most of the article consists of unsourced original research and more than a little editorializing. What if we stub it down to the plot and characters? I honestly don't see any way to source most of sections 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as they read more like a piece of lit crit than an encyclopedic entry. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it; I don't think anyone would object to that. DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have reached a quick consensus to keep. In accordance w/ this discussion, I will be paring this article down to the essentials of plot, character, and that which has otherwise been properly sourced. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, sorry in advance for your edit conflict. I was already at work on it when you posted this. I've left in some of the less-shaky OR and moved the maintenance tags down to it specifically. If you want to hack more out of it, that's fine. -- asilvering (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This may possibly be the worst nomination I've ever seen of a Canadian article. Ignoring that surely any Ondaatje (one of the most famous current fiction writers in the nation) novel is going to easily meet GNG (he's only written 7 in the last half-century) and WP:NBOOK, the book is controversial, famous, and won a Giller Prize. I can't even being to comprehend how this came to be nominated. As to the content - this is definitely not the forum - WP:BeBold and improve the article. Generally, I'd WP:AGF, but this is the users sixth-ever Wikipedia edit - the previous edit, was a very sophisticated request to WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports! Something seems odd here. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz Bots have "false positive? report here!" links all the time. There's nothing sophisticated about following that link, looking at how others have responded, and writing up a report. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He's a bot? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me rephrase: when you are caught by an edit filter, they have a "false positive? report here!" link. Anyone who was acting in good faith and had reasonable competence would be able to then follow that link and explain themselves. Hardly sophisticated. In this case, the edit filter didn't just tag the user's edit history, but actually blocked the edit entirely - very hard not to notice. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay - I was having trouble figuring out what that entire thing was - I couldn't find any instructions, or clear definition of it! I guess it must be new - it never triggered when I was a newb. I'll strike the word "sophisticated" ... though I note from the first edit that the summaries were quite sophisticated. Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hello? I just tried to close the discussion and somebody reverted my edit. I thought we all agreed this is an obvious keep.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username We did. I think that user may have assumed your edit was incorrect or vandalism. Sorry: this is probably going to happen to you a lot at the beginning. You should probably go talk to that editor on their talk page to resolve this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: You reverted someone who was withdrawing their own AfD nomination (without any other delete !votes), was that a misclick? DanCherek (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really starting to feel unwelcome here. Sorry for breaking into the private clubhouse. You guys have fun w/ this article. I'm out. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up! Given how quickly - one might say uniquely, you've jumped in, and fully comprehend so many nuances of the project, then clearly you've a bright future ahead of you! Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cleanup issues are a matter for the editing process, not the deletion process — but a widely-reviewed novel by one of Canada's most internationally famous writers, which won one of Canada's major notability-clinching literary awards, cannot possibly be deemed non-notable by any definition. If there's a problem with the content, then fix the content, and if there's a problem with the referencing, then fix the referencing — but there's a legitimately strong notability claim, and solid referencing most certainly does exist to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The novel received several awards including Giller Prize and also significant coverage. The article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. 05:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Bigstory1 (talk)

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.