Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One of the Family

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Family

[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)

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything to suggest it won awards or was in any other way notable. If anyone can find reviews that meet the GNG, I'd be interested to see them, otherwise I suggest delete (or possibly merge to Monica Dickens if there is anything to merge. JMWt (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviewed in Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph. Jfire (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this meets the requirements of WP:NB? JMWt (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slam-dunk but I do think it's enough to meet WP:NB. On the other hand, the article as it stands is in WP:TNT territory. So I don't have a strong opinion either way. Jfire (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monica Dickens, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on this before the end of this AfD. TNT territory is right. -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is, thanks folks. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. Catling, Patrick Skene (1993-05-27). "Shop talk and hidden malice". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Her last novel is up to her usual standard — humane, world wise and gently witty. ... She is especially good at conveying a sense of the solemnly self-regarding hierarchy of a grand commercial establishment that seemed then as permanent as the Pyramids. Writing with the enthusiastic thoroughness of a female Arnold Bennett, she makes Whiteley's and the Morley family symbols of England just before the Great War and Tobias Taylor an agent of destructive change. How "as one of the family", by means of accidentally false medical diagnosis and deliberate seduction, he brings about ruinous tragedy makes this novel full of surprising twists and an admirable memorial to the craftsmanship of Monica Dickens."
2. Milne, Kirsty (1993-04-10). "A love triangle tinged with guilt". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Monica Dickens evokes the age of corsets and chloroform without slipping too far into the nostalgia trap. Her tendency to jump between a large cast of characters sometimes leaves the novel a little unfocused, but her brisk energy supplies a narrative drive of its own."
3. Mann, Jessica (1993-04-25). "Keeping it in the family. Jessica Mann on Monica Dickens's final family saga". The Sunday Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "One of the Family is otherwise based on research into the life of Edwardian London. The plot concerns the actual murder of William Whiteley, of the Queensway store; but this is not a murder story. It is a rambling tale of an extended family. Although the cast is a few steps down in cast from Galsworthy's characters, we are in Forsyte territory."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow One of the Family to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Jfire (talk · contribs), for finding these sources. I've added the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've trimmed most of the excessively breathless plot section. The reviews satisfy WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY improvements from Cunard and pburka. Jfire (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2023 (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.