Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The story of a Magian love (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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The story of a Magian love (Novel),

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)

Non-notable book, refs are just plot summaries. A loose necktie (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 1, 2 and 3 all found in under two minutes. Nomination without merit. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mccapra, why are those sources reliable? czar 20:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi 1. Is an independent 2022 review of the work published in a major online magazine, 2. Is a lengthy 2017 review of the work by an independent writer in a cultural magazine, and 3. is likewise a lengthy 2018 review of the book in an Iraqi cultural magazine. None of them is PR or black hat SEO and all carry extensive literary and critical content. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see editorial policies or even a masthead for any of the three, considering how they're formatted like blogs. The third one has a sizable Facebook following but I'm struggling to get more on the background of the first two. Do they have Wikidata entries? czar 22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The creator of the article has bombarded Wikipedia with so many poor-quality page creations that I don't entirely fault A loose necktie for nominating it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meet
  reviews, as brought out by Mccapra above. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a reviewed book thank you Mccapra. Bruxton (talk) 19:59, 28 June 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.