Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 Minutes (novel)


 * 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 in the absence of an available merge target. The consensus seems to be that the available reviews do not rise to the level required by Notability (books). –Black Falcon (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

15 Minutes (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable novel. No significant coverage whatsoever. Does not satisfy WP:BK. Note that the few news sources that reference the book are in editorials written by Steve Young&mdash;and the novel is only mentioned in the "about the author" text. Bongo  matic  16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bongo, thanks. I'm dropping some notification templates on the pages of editors who have worked on this. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only real reviews are this and this (I've already cut the latter, since it served no other purpose than to verify plot), both of which are not reliable sources as far as WP is concerned. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:BK exclusionary criteria. It doesn't have an entry in the Library of Congress.PrincessofLlyr (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I am entirely removing my vote and going neutral. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Library of Congress entry. Obviously this doesn't make the book notable, but it does have the entry, and,  give it the required 2 reviews.  according to  it was a 2008 International Reading Association's "Young Adult's Choice."  Whether this qualifies as notable according to WP:BK is up to the community, but these are the facts.  Joshua Scott (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I searched it and I'm not sure how I missed that. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Young Adult's Choice award might be something, but I'd like to see evidence of it. This page here does not list the book. The reviews you bring up are not in authoritative or reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Young Adult's Choice is not an award&mdash;it is a list of 30 books. The bookmark referenced above refers to this article. The coverage is one paragraph. This is a list of books inclusion on which does not demonstrate notability. It's not obvious to me if this author is notable. Of course, if he is, mention of his works in an article on him would seem appropriate. Bongo  matic  05:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into an article on the author. The best first place to look is WorldCat, which shows it in 475 libraries. This is quite respectable though not spectacular for a children's novel.The author also has written "Winchell Mink : the misadventure begins", in 375 libraries. We could certainly justify an article on the author, and, according to our rules, this book at least and probably the other are notable also, but given there is no content yet but a plot summary, I think they would do better as sections of the author article. The important thing is the content, and there is no real need to multiply small articles. OK either way. The only real objection I have to merged articles is the possibility of losing content.    DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG, your proposal is attractive, but I'm not even convinced that the author is notable (that is, I have not seen any evidence of it). 475 is a decent enough number, I guess, for an academic author, but for a HarperCollins children's book it doesn't strike me as very high. The other thing is, I don't see any real content here that can be lost, besides a plot summary. Or am I just being pedantic? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Library of Congress entry. The author also has written "Winchell Mink : the misadventure begins", in 375 libraries. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually every publication has an LOC entry. What exactly is the basis for your inference of notability? Bongo  matic  16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No persuasive evidence that this book meets the general notability guideline. Ucucha 23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The book was reviewed in Kirkus Reviews, 6/1/2006, Instructor, 9/2006, School Library Journal, 9/2006, and Teacher Librarian, 10/2008. The Instructor and Teacher Librarian reviews are lumped in with other titles.  The Kirkus Reviews and School Library Journal reviews were about a quarter-page each in print form, and are mainly plot summaries.  Solid sources, but not in-depth enough coverage to satisfy WP:BK, in my opinion. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ucucha. So this has a LOC entry.  So what? JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that is not the argument. The argument is the wide availability in libraries, which reflects reader interest, which is notability. It's high, but not spectacular. But the really decisive argument is the reviews. Reviews of books are the secondary sources which show their notability. I'd like someone to explain why they think it would not be the case? Essentially, the book meets the GNG because of the reviews. For better or worse, the existence of RSs is either a determinant of notability according to many people's views, or at least a very major factor.    DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A tiny handful of minor "reviews" that do no more than indicate that the book exists and has a summarizable plot do not add up to notability under WP:PERSISTENCE.  A LOC mention is necessary, but far from sufficient, for notability for an English-language book. THF (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (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.