Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Wedding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. alphaChimp(talk) 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Wedding

Non-notable book available only in a handful of stores. Fails notability criteria for books. --Tbeatty 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator --Tbeatty 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NOT criteria for books. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Morton devonshire 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--Peephole 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fullfills notability criteria for books, "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify." [1] --Striver 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Refered to in CounterPunch [2]. That should put an end to the Notability disscution. --Striver 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And 911Truth.org [3]. --Striver 14:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
More: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]... enough? It easly fullfils criteria for book inclusion. --Striver 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It easily fulfills the requirements to go in Wikibooks but not Wikipedia.--Tbeatty 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability as a book is limited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was just at Barnes & Noble, and they did have two copies of The New Pearl Harbor, and numerous copies of Debunking 9/11 Myths. But no copies of The Big Wedding. On Amazon, The Big Wedding is ranked #252,792 in Amazon sales, compared to 1,778 for the New Pearl Harbor, and #850 for Debunking 9/11 Myths. Based on sales rank and non-availability of The Big Wedding, I don't consider The Big Wedding to be notable enough to merit an article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
“ A contemporary book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:
  1. The book is authored by a person meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.
  2. The book is by a bestselling or otherwise notable author.
  3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theatres.
  4. The book has won a non-trivial literary award.
  5. The book is taught at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  6. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[2] reviews.
  7. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.
    • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flapcopy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book[3], but includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.
 ”

Notability is established by meeing one of the above. This book meets multiple criteria 1, 6 & 7.

1: Sander Hicks is notable, he has his own article

6: Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle.

7: see the article for full list.

Thus, is the notability disscusion settled. Since that is the only motiv nom has, this afd needs to bee speedy keept or a new nom must be presented.--Striver 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver - The links provided that mention the book are not all that notable, in my opinion, nor sufficient to write a good article (with independent, reliable sources). You cited Wikipedia:Notability (books), which is only an essay or proposed policy. The only guidelines we have are on the naming conventions page [10], which states "Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book," My local bookshop did not have the book, but did have some other more notable conspiracy theory books. Why can't we just include mention of the book in the Sander Hicks article? --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if you were right, which i do not assert, the article still fullfills point 1. And that is all that is needed to assert notability. --Striver 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That is not reasonable. Do we want articles for all 600 of Isaac Asimov's books? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Criteria #1 is part of a proposed, not yet agreed-on policy. Take a look at Category:Writer stubs. All these writers are apparently notable enough for articles, yet only notable enough to have stub articles. Now, do we want to compound these writer stubs by creating stub articles on each of their books? For that reason, I disagree with proposed criteria #1. I highly suggest we keep details of a writer's books in the writer article, unless the book is so notable that it meets criteria #3, #4, or #5, or the article gets to be so long that (per WP:SUMMARY), sections need to be split off. That's the case with articles such as Michael Moore, but not writer-stub articles. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not write that, so i have no idea how much work went into creating it. But i know it is all we have to go by. Regarding point 6, it has a note to it, and by the standards of that note:

“ "Non-trivial" normally excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. ”

And by that standard is the GNN and Baltimore Chronicle reviews non-trivial. Both Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle have articles, thuse are they both notable. You want to dissregard #1? Then Are you going also to dissregard #6 and #7 ? --Striver 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the book also fullills #2. If you look closly, many times is the author presented as the author of this very book, and not as anything else. are we going to ignore #2? If yes, then we have ignored 4 of 7 points.--Striver 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added Publishers Weeklys review, cementing #6 and #7. --Striver 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

added a fourth source, this time an interview. --Striver 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom GabrielF 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Mmx1 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Striver's research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Burn baby burn.--MONGO 13:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_The_Big_Wedding_19ca.html"