Talk:Siegfried Engelmann
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Smartyllama in topic Merger proposal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siegfried Engelmann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources etc
editI just approved this article for AfC. Sourcing is not great but a search of NY Times, Washington Post and others finds enough to pass notability guidelines regardless of present article content. A section on Engelmann's critics would be in order as they do exist. The article was far too long, written by a WP:COI. See history for reductions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editFormal request has been received to merge The Pet Goat into its author, Siegfried Engelmann. Rationale: The book's only claim to fame was that President George W. Bush was reading it to schoolchildren when he was informed of the 9/11 attacks. That is it. It has not won any notable awards or gotten any coverage beyond that. 69.118.34.185 (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose WP:1E applies to people not books. A book would be under WP:NBOOK. True it doesn't have awards (#2) but not required to be notable. The notability is with #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." Looking at "what links here" the source articles all related to 9/11 and I think it makes sense to land on a page about the book not the author. Indeed the author page doesn't even link to the book, oddly. -- GreenC 15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This IP address just seems to be a single user account for merge proposals. If you look at its history, barely any point mentioned on the current proposals. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It's clearly notable independent of the author. Whether it's notable independent of 9/11 is another issue, but the author is not an appropriate merge _target regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)