Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War (novel)

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 Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War (novel)

[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)

Page primarily serves to promote self-published books given 'Chilton Designs Publishers' only lists books written by the author in its catalogue, potentially suggesting it is author-owned vanity publishing company to add faux credibility. Novel failed to win any awards, was only nominated - false equivalence fallacy. Review sources are also unverifiable which has been a common trend with Coleman's unaudited pages. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to
doi:10.7748/nop.15.2.36.s19. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Gale.
The review notes: "I started to read Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War and felt amused, surprised and then indignant. It is an extremely compelling book."

There are a large number of reviews listed under Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War on the author's website^{Internet Archive}. But it is unclear whether these sources are about the film adaptation of the book and how many provide significant coverage about the book itself.
Like the AfD nominator, I did not find the review sources cited in the Wikipedia article in my searches for sources so was unable to verify them. If any editor finds significant coverage in two or more reliable sources about the book, I will switch to supporting retention.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's also important to acknowledge that the author is a conspiracy theorist who has a long, proven history of making false claims. I would thus be wary of taking his personal website reviews as being genuine.MrEarlGray (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. I did not verify the sources he provided on his website so for the purposes of AfD and verifiability am treating them as if they did not exist. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2022 (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.