Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betrayal (2012 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Betrayal (2012 novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Here's the big issue with this book. While no one can deny that Steel is notable, I'm not entirely sure that I can say without a doubt that she's so notable that all of her books are automatically notable by extension. Part of me says yes, part of me says no because while she's influenced so many I'm not entirely certain that she's at the point where it's absolutely undeniable. Rather than just redirecting it to her article, I thought I'd bring it up to AfD for a wider consensus since this isn't a cut and dry notable/nonnotable discussion for me. As far as sources go, I found three: two trade reviews and a spot on ABC News, but three sources are not enough to show notability. The book did achieve NYT Bestseller status but that doesn't actually extend notability and is considered trivial in the grand scheme of things. The Kirkus Review is so bland and non-descriptive that I almost didn't use it. A search only brought up trivial mentions. I'd love it if someone can dig up more sources that actually go over the novel, but this appears to be non-notable outside of the author's notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, another reason I wanted to bring this up for AfD, aside from issues of notability, is that if this is kept based on Steel's notability then we can use this as an example if any of her other books get brought up for deletion in the future. Setting a precedent, in other words.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I found reviews in Publishers Weekly, the Malaysian Star, and Bangkok Post, as well as the coverage on Kirkus and ABC. There's also a rather implausible Book Reporter review that looks more like an advert. On the other hand, it does sound like it's a really bad book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources identified so far are enough to show notability.  A dedicated segment on Good Morning America is not insignificant.   Another one: Times of India --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep All that's really needed for WP:GNG is two book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only two book reviews? I know there's more now, but I've always been told that it's more along the lines of 4 sources or so in order to show that it's gotten any depth of coverage for any given thing, whether it's a book, person, event, or film. I say this because I've seen AfDs closed as "delete" on articles where there's only been two sources. Also, as far as the Times of India goes, I didn't include that because it's considered to be a rather unreliable source because they've been caught on multiple occasions for printing outright falsehoods or stretching the truth to the point where it was pretty much a falsehood at that point. The reason I've been trying to shy away from using BookReporter.com is that someone recently informed me off-Wikipedia that the site pretty much just collects reviews from various book blogs that sign up for the site and I'm not exactly sure what criteria, if any, is used to tell what makes one of the blog reviews more valid than another. Until I can find more things that would make me feel comfortable about using the site, I'm a little leery about including anything from there. Also, what does everyone think about stating whether or not Steel would be someone that would be someone that's so notable that her books would become notable by extension? I'm not really all that devoted to deleting this, really. I just figured that this AfD could be valuable in the future as far as setting a standard for her books in general- especially those that might've been released pre-Internet and might not have a lot of visible sources, thus giving them an automatic "save" from being AfD'd in the future.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to meet the threshold for notability. Even so, I'm persuaded there is more coverage out there. Vcessayist (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think two significant reviews should do it. I don't see anything in my search for "The Times of India" to indicate significant concerns; the WP article pretty much portrays it as a major newspaper there with some controversies. The book review itself looks good; yes, the book does seem to be bad. Not our criterion, though. Churn and change (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2012 (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.