Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wedding (2000 novel)
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 keep. Thanks, all, for your comments. I'm closing this now, but the article still needs cleanup, if anyone wants to dig in. Chick Bowen 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Wedding (2000 novel)
This was tagged for proposed deletion with the following rationale: "This article has been completely unreferenced for over a year it fails WP:V If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This one may be a potential WP:AFD Notability is lightly questioned on the talk page. The author well known. but the article is clearly failing WP:V." My only problem with this is precedent; we have an awful lot of articles on books that cite only the book as a source. On the other hand, this particular book, a perfectly ordinary romance novel from someone who wrote a ridiculous number, might not be worthy of an article anyway. So, no opinion from me, but I wanted to open this up to larger discussion. Chick Bowen 01:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep a book by Danielle Steel is almost certainly notable, she is a major author. If there's not enough sources now, well, I suspect that's a problem of interest, given that fans of Danielle Steel are probably less present on Wikipedia than fans of other books. However, a quick check of Amazon does indeed confirm she wrote the book. FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just because Danielle Steel wrote the book doesn't mean it's automatically notable. I will agree that she herself is notable, and I'm not swayed in either direction on this article, but I think your reasoning is a bit flawed. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Like I said, almost certainly notable. If it's not, I'd actually need some demonstration of it besides the lack of people editing the article. FrozenPurpleCube 05:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment was a New York Times
- 1[1], however, I can't find Newspaper reviews, so it may fail notability. For WP:V, don't you only have to click on the ISBN link?[2] CitiCat 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- That verifies its existence, not its notability or anything significant about it. For a canonical book we generally downplay the plot summary and consider primarily critical reception; see Uncle Tom's Cabin for an ideal example. Obviously that doesn't mean we can't cover non-literary fiction, but I do think an article needs to have something other than merely internal material. But this is generally a problem in our book articles; hence my wishy-washy nomination. I added the info an source you mention, though; thanks. Chick Bowen 04:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. First off, I'm not sure whether I'd expect much in the way of newspaper reviews for Danielle Steele's work or not. I went to look and see which other novels of hers had pages, and what sorts of content and sources they had. I was thoroughly disappointed. I don't have a real opinion on whether this article should stay or go. I definitely think an argument can be made for her novels that were made into TV movies, but this one wasn't. Anyway, if it gets deleted, I would highly suggest taking a look at the following Danielle Steele novel articles: The Gift (Steel novel) and A Perfect Stranger. (Whoops, forgot to sign) CharacterZero | Speak 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, this is a general problem. If notability requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other," then a lot of our book articles might have to go, or at least be merged into the author articles. There are thousands exactly like the one you link. Chick Bowen 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt, per concerns raised by User:Chick Bowen. I still don't think that Steel's novels are inherently notable, but if it can be verified that it was a #1 best seller that might be just enough to satisfy WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, it's normally assumed that any book which has been printed by a major publisher is notable. It seems terribly unfair to set the bar higher for stuff which Wikipedians aren't likely to read, there are bound to be sources offline.--Nydas(Talk) 06:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'd agree with Nydas here. There seems to be an idea expressed here that because Steele is 'only' a romance writer not read by people like us that her works have no place here. 'if it can be verified that it was #1 best seller that might be 'just' enough to satisfy WP:N' seems entirely unfair. That most Wikipedians seem much more interested in cartoons or reality TV, rather than romance novels or whatever, shouldn't decide what's included here. Nick mallory 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure where this is coming from. No one in this discussion has voted to delete. I totally agree with you, "if it can be verified that it was #1" then I'm fine with it. I just can't log in to that Times article. So if we get a couple people on here to confirm that, then you have a Keep vote from me. CharacterZero | Speak 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Um, I did put the link to the 'Times archive in my previous comment - [3] CitiCat 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that - I just couldn't log in for some reason. Can now though, and indeed, it was #1. CharacterZero | Speak 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Um, I did put the link to the 'Times archive in my previous comment - [3] CitiCat 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You misunderstand my point. I don't think a book has to be a number one bestseller to be considered notable. My point was that the bar shouldn't be set any higher for a book like this than for any other. Nick mallory 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure where this is coming from. No one in this discussion has voted to delete. I totally agree with you, "if it can be verified that it was #1" then I'm fine with it. I just can't log in to that Times article. So if we get a couple people on here to confirm that, then you have a Keep vote from me. CharacterZero | Speak 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of the sentence "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It does not mean "delete articles with no sources." It means, "if no sources can be found what-so-ever, the article should not exist." This is not the case for a nationally recognized book. The sources need to be added. Leebo T/C 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Criteria #5 under WP:BK - "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." Steel's resume is overwhelming; she's one of the world's best selling authors, and this book is being sold under her name on Amazon. This is patently obvious a keep. RGTraynor 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I disagree with you - in fact, I'm going to finally enter a keep vote now - but I just want to clarify about #5 under WP:BK. The footnote to #5 offers the following: "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Now, I agree that Danielle Steele is significant, and this work seems significant too. However, I don't think that you could use this rationale to justify some of the Danielle Steele stubs mentioned before. Is she so inherently notable that any stub about one of her books should survive? I'd be willing to make stubs on the order of A Perfect Stranger for all of them, if we really believe they are all that notable by association. CharacterZero | Speak 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is she so inherently notable that any stub about one of her books should survive? She has over half a billion books in print; I would say that she is. RGTraynor 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree with the use of WP:BK #5 - to me it implies that the author is significant outside of being an author. For instance, a book written by a major world leader. CitiCat 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is she so inherently notable that any stub about one of her books should survive? She has over half a billion books in print; I would say that she is. RGTraynor 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I disagree with you - in fact, I'm going to finally enter a keep vote now - but I just want to clarify about #5 under WP:BK. The footnote to #5 offers the following: "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Now, I agree that Danielle Steele is significant, and this work seems significant too. However, I don't think that you could use this rationale to justify some of the Danielle Steele stubs mentioned before. Is she so inherently notable that any stub about one of her books should survive? I'd be willing to make stubs on the order of A Perfect Stranger for all of them, if we really believe they are all that notable by association. CharacterZero | Speak 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - and improve - notable author - not high literature but significant popular culture icon. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:36, 22 May 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.
