Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Sucessora

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. Notability established under WP:NB #3, concerns about reliable sourcing were addressed without rebuttal j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Sucessora

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NB. Couldn't find any significant coverage of the book. Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This has been here since 2006 with no reliable sources. Best to delete. --Artene50 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time or the inclination to look through them yet, but there would appear to be loads of reliable sources among these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lack of sources in an article is not a valid reason to delete an article. (Unless you've searched and can find none, then it would be a valid reason to delete, but there's a ton of results coming back on Google so I find it hard to believe that there's absolutely none.) I'm finding sources, although it's somewhat slow going because there's a huge language barrier here. (Everything is in Spanish and I'm having to use Google translate due to my comprehension being at beginner level.) However, what I'm finding shows that this is indeed notable. It is a bestseller in Brazil, spawned an incredibly popular telenovela series, and even got some controversy because of the incredibly close similarities between A Sucessora and Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca. (A Sucessora was published earlier and the general consensus in Brazil seems to say that du Maurier plagiarized the work.) The article is slow going, but it does seem to pass WP:NBOOK via it being the focus of a notable telenovela and being the focus of several news articles. (Most of them are from the 40s, but coverage is coverage.) Since it was published in the 1930s it's going to take some time to find all of the sources (some of which are undoubtedly lost to the sands of time or aren't on the internet) but this does appear to be notable. My school has a copy of the Auerbach book, so I'll check to see if I can verify that claim in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the subject is out of question (take a look also to the articles on fr.Wiki, es.Wiki, and pt.Wiki). After the huge improvements made by Tokyogirl179, we could probably suspend the proposed delation. --Checco (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book has been made into TV series, satisfying WP:NB criteria 3. Criteria 1 can also be argued due to the coverage that both works received. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 05:53, 4 July 2012 (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.