Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Godmother (book)

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 Merge and redirect to Griselda Blanco, redirect is to maintain GFDL compliance as the article has an extensive edit history Gnangarra 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Godmother (book)

The Godmother (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clearly doesn't meet WP:BK notability. Only ~23 google hits. No assertion of any independent media coverage, let alone multiple nontrivial citations. Author relatively unknown, won no awards, no movie, not taught in major schools. Also, there is an ongoing edit dispute at the article regarding non-free image use (using a gallery, including the back cover of the book, which clearly violates WP:FUC #8), so this reveals my bias towards this article for full disclosure. Andrew c ^[talk] 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of "significant coverage by independent sources" as in WP:NOTE Corpx 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if some reviews can be added as references. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• No reviews exist of it. I checked, and so did the nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this is the only known book about Griselda Blanco making it historically important. PianoKeys 09:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Being the only book about a subject does not grant notability Corpx 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A pre-internet book lacking google hits? Extraordinary! —Xezbeth 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are plenty of books that pre-date the internet with good sources on the internet. Corpx 08:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note Zodiac (book), a 1986 book, and Helter Skelter (book), a 1974 book. If you search google for "Robert Graysmith" Zodiac, you'll get 164,000 hits. If you search google for Bugliosi "Helter Skelter", you'll get 51,500. And what about the 1965 In Cold Blood (book), searching for "In Cold Blood" capote gets 401,000. That said, the fact of the matter isn't that google only gets 23 hits, its that not a single source is cited, let alone multiple, nontrivial independent sources, which are our notability requirement. If this requirement was met, or some other form of notability established, even with non-web sources, I'd withdraw the nomination.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Griselda Blanco. She is notable, the book is not. Tualha (Talk) 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Griselda Blanco. The book doesn't meet WP:BK, but a merge will retain the information in a more suitable context. As Tualha said, the book isn't notable even if the subject is.--Isotope23 15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the first keep vote was a conditional keep that has not been met. The second keep was by the article's author. I'd support a merge per Tualha/Isotope23.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant info to main article, then delete: topic does not appear to require its own article. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:17, 20 July 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.