Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolt Risk

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 — reasons for retention do not adequately address points made by those arguing for deletion. Consensus reflects this. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolt Risk

Bolt Risk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Obscure, non-notable book. The sole book from an otherwise non-notable author, Bolt Risk currently has an Amazon.com sales rank of over #1.2 million, and "Bolt Risk" + "Ann Wood" garners only 135 Google hits [[1]], led by this Wikipedia article, followed closely by the publisher's website, the Amazon.com link and the author's Myspace page. Peculiarly enough, the newspaper reviews claimed by the publisher do not appear among the Google hits. Moreover, the article sneaks in a bio of the author. Finally, this article was created by an SPA and represents that editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and remainder. Only perfunctory reviews (such as Kirkus) found on Google News Archive search, falling short of WP:BK. I did think that Leapfrog Press is potentially notable (one of the founders is Marge Piercy). --Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: I closed this AfD as delete, but apparently whilst I was doing so, User:Noroton was research some references and additional cited reviews (see [2]). That would have caused me to relist given much new info, but a poor article, and so I have restored, reopened and relisted this article. Please add further comments below this point. Splash - tk 21:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even though there were added refs, this is still a non-notable book. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete may have got a few good reviews, but it was still a big flop commercially and is therefore non-notable. Pulp it. RMHED 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've added information from several reviews, which I think show this article meets WP:BK. The publisher's Web site also has reprinted an interview from the Provincetown Banner with the author, although I can't find that online (not surprising for a small weekly).Noroton 22:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notices from Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Kirkus do not establish notability. since they will notice almost anything. I can't confirm the Washington Post review independlently of the publisher's Web site, even though I am a subscriber to the WP site and archive. Deor 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to be reviewed by the Washington Post. Kingturtle 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: Would you care to provide us with a verifiable link (or failing that, a date and page ref) to that review? At this point, I doubt it exists, and outright challenge the assertion.  RGTraynor  08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Being reviewed by the post doesn't give notability. DELETEBalloonman 16:35, 16 November 2007 (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.