Talk:The Myth of the Zodiac Killer

Notability tag
A tag was recently posted to this article questioning its notability under WP:NB. Please comment if you below if you believe this qualifies under GNG or NB, if this article should be sent to AfD, or if this article should be improved before removing the notability template. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Qualifies Under NB criterion 1 ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.") The book is the singular subject of an article in MEL Magazine, and is the singular subject of three separate episodes of Generation Why [e.g. , etc.]. It probably also qualifies under GNG due to aforementioned sources combined with paragraph-length coverage in El Confidencial, ABC, and the Wild Blue Press book The Case of the Zodiac Killer, all listed in the References section, plus additional coverage not contained therein. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The MEL Magazine source does not appear to be about this book at all; it's not mentioned, and the article links to a different book by the same author. The podcast cited is an interview with the author and appears to fail note 2 of NB criterion 1. Could you quote the paragraphs that you believe may qualify under GNG? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The book that's the topic of this article is a compendium of three previously published volumes so the MEL Magazine article does, indeed, cover the book. "appears to fail note 2 of NB criterion 1" I'm unclear what part of note two it fails. "Could you quote the paragraphs that you believe may qualify under GNG?" Yes:
 * "Cada cierto tiempo aparece una nueva que intenta responder a la gran pregunta: ¿quién era el asesino del zodiaco? Una de la más impopulares es la de Thomas Henry Horan, un antiguo profesor de San Luis que, hace dos años, publicó «The Myth of the Zodiac Killer» (El mito del asesino del zodiaco), en el que intenta desmontar la existencia de dicho criminal."
 * "Una de las más impopulares, aunque difundidas, es la del antiguo profesor de San Luis Thomas Henry Horan, autor de 'The Myth of the Zodiac Killer', que, como su nombre indica, intenta desmontar la existencia de dicho asesino. Simplemente, se juntó el hambre de un puñado de agresores e imitadores con las ganas de comer de la policía."
 * Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those do not appear to meet the "significant coverage" requirement of GNG, and I don't agree we can say that an article that doesn't mention this book at all "covers" it. NB criterion 1 note 2 requires that the work be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree. While these are not the main subject of the articles in question they are more than a mere glancing mention. Per our guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." "I don't agree we can say that an article that doesn't mention this book at all " I disagree that a digital-first article that hyperlinks to the book doesn't constitute a mention of said book. Chetsford (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed a hyperlink to this book (I don't see one), that would be a mention but far from the "singular subject of the article" as claimed above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing independent coverage to substantiate NBOOK here-- with the caveat that I don't speak spanish and don't trust google translate. Looking at the english sources I would !vote something along the lines of 'weak selective merge' to Zodiac Killer. It's rather telling that I found no reviews specifically dedicated to the book in English. The author seems to have gotten a bit of coverage regarding his theory, so I wouldn't consider deletion appropriate. The magazine article is good coverage of the author's theories-- though not necessarily a high quality source, and the podcasts aren't independent as interviews of the author. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole article screams self-promotion. I say delete it.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not object at all to an AFD nomination. In fact, I would prefer having the article either conclusively deleted or kept, rather than it simply sitting in limbo. Chetsford (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)