Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far Tortuga (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. per Keep arguments (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Tortuga (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)

AI language model entirely generated the article. There is only one source, might be appropriate to move into Draftspace. Verified as 100% AI using gptzero. Marleeashton (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Bogus AI garbage, only reference is hallucinated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Article is greatly improved, changing to keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeirdNAnnoyed, Marleeashton: I've substantially improved the article, mind taking a look again? Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, but needs some work. I will rewrite it and add some references, though some of the current content is correct. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to give @ARandomName123: and any other interested editors some time to improve the article. Subject appears to meet WP:GNG, if only barely: [1]. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Yin: I wouldn't say it meets GNG only barely. WP:NBOOK requires only two pieces of coverage, and this book far exceeds that. Some of the following are already in the article. Reviews: The New York Review of Books (here), The New York Times (here), The Cincinnati Post (here) and The Miami Herald (here). Journal articles and analysis pieces: Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature (here), American Literature (journal) (here), Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment (here) and Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify if changes aren't made. However if sufficient changes are, then Keep. Looks like a major improvement already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks better now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been substantially improved and easily meets GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HEY charlotte ^👸♥ 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability. However, the reception section suffers from excessive quotations. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After presenting the sources, I will say it passes NBOOK. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:11, 5 January 2025 (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.