Counterparts (novel): The only reason the page was created was due to the recent death of the author and the political fuss connected to it (Lira died while he was detained by the Ukrainian authorities due to his pro-Russian activities) Karma1998 ( talk ) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The book was good enough to get "a million dollar advance", and has gotten ample coverage in reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Getting an advance is fine, but doesn't get you a wikipedia article.  The "ample coverage" used now in the article is rather thin to be honest.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct.  Being the subject of two non-trivial published works is what gets a book its own article.  Your opinion of the author or of Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews is irrelevant, and further beset by the multiple reviews already sourced in the article and alluded to below.  Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The LA Times article is the best source, with only trivial coverage of the book.  The usual Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews are fine, but every book out there has them, so I'd prefer more than these in order to keep this article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NBOOK #1 with reviews in Kirkus , Publishers Weekly , Newsday , Orlando Sentinel , and San Francisco Examiner .  The news of the million dollar advance was covered in the LA Times and also in Chilean press , with articles like "El escritor chileno del millón de dólares" and "El hombre del millón de dólares" .  The Spanish language translation of the book, Contrapartes , received reviews as well: [16] , [17] , [18] .  Jfire ( talk ) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NBOOK , plus above.  Honestly I'm surprised the standards for book notability are as seemingly low as they are.  Some are shorter "capsule" ones which don't really count but there seem to be several that are longer, decently in depth ones.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "low" standards are well established and the result of a multitude of discussion spanning well over a decade, and not the oversight you may perceive it to be.  You are free to express your surprise at the relevant talk page, because it is frankly irrelevant to the discussion here.  Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, but I'm not complaining about it.  Just surprised.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure thing.  Apologies if my tone was at all uncharitable, I just wanted to hit on that point given the weak rationale belying this entire nomination and the already imposing distraction of the author on this article's merit and existence.  I always appreciate to hear other perspectives!  Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NBOOK , which depends on "two or more non-trivial published works" about the book, including reviews.  The Orlando Sentinel review is 7 paragraphs long, the Newsday review is 4 paragraphs, and the San Francisco Examiner is 3 paragraphs, in addition to the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus.  Above, Oaktree b says that "every book out there" has Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews — there are a lot of aspiring authors who wish that were true.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jfire.  The article not only passes WP:NBOOK but exceeds it, as Toughpigs outlined above.  This nomination is patently in bad faith because the author was a controversial figure.  I strongly suggest that users like Karma1998 and Oaktree b familiarise themselves with the clear and longstanding notability guidelines for books before making a nomination like this or rationalising it.  I didn't know of this figure until recently but one quick glance at his wiki page and its extensive deletion nomination history can tell you why this sort of AfD was engendered.  Please do not try to weasel out of basic guidelines because you have feelings about the author (aka not the subject of the article being nominated for deletion) or about why and when this article was created.  Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasons above, Lira's coverage in Chile because of the book was significant, he was referred to as "the highest paid Chilean writer in the world" (Que Pasa magazine) [19] and "the million dollar man" (El Mercurio, Chile's newspaper of record ) [20] JSwift49 13:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I can see this being merged to author Gonzalo Lira eventually.  Newsday is a group review and there is a single paragraph on the book—it is a capsule review.  The Orlando Sentinel has a brief review similar in length to The San Francisco Examiner .  (Saying Orlando is "seven paragraphs" when the paragraphs are in column format, i.e., they're two- or three-sentence paragraphs.)  Both cover only some basic detail and cannot be used as a basis for an article.  I would be advocating for merger and summary style coverage if it weren't for the Spanish-language blurbs, which are also short.  PW and Kirkus are librarian trade publications that review widely and inclusion there does not confer notability.  Once all of this material is summarized, I would be surprised it amounts to more than two succinct paragraphs, which can be amply covered in the context of the author's biography.  czar 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets the general requirements for notability on Wikipedia.  (NB- I moved the page to Main when it was draftified some time ago).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:25, 23 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep