Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigmama Didn't Shop At Woolworth's


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bigmama Didn't Shop At Woolworth's

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After I cleared out the promotional inline references, we're left with one good reference, the rest being to either where to buy the book or mere listings, not seeming to meet notability guidelines. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  23:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Not that it's terribly relevant, but one ref was:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS, reviews by Library Journal, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, The Western Journal of Black Studies, Los Angeles Times, have added these to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Good references added, including LA Times and lengthy article in Western Journal of Black Studies (published by Washington State University), as well as other less prestigious reviews. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The current version of the article, as improved by Coolabahapple and other editors, clearly satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but not so fast... Library Journal, School Library Journal (YA lit), and even to some extent Publishers Weekly are trade publications for librarians. Their reviews are short (51-250 words), largely indiscriminate (they help librarians determine which books to purchase, not just the most important ones), and largely unhelpful for purposes of building an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic (the general notability guideline). (I have the 1997 print Book Review Index in front of me. It only lists those three trade publications and no other periodicals, indicating a minor release.) This said, the reviews from Mississippi Quarterly, The Western Journal of Black Studies, and the Los Angeles Times are together sufficient as a baseline. And if not, we should be looking for a merge target rather than outright deletion. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  21:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, yep pw, lj, and slj are "tradies", but nbook and gng do not specifically preclude trade reviews/journals aimed at libraries/librarians, nor do they preclude reviews from scientific journals on science books, military journals reviewing military history books, art journals reviewing artists and their works, as long as they are independent of the author and not too "niche" they are useable, of course with a review or two from non-trade publications notability with a book like this one is pretty clear. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No issue with journals in niche fields, but a book trade journal designed to cover books in volume isn't good evidence of a book's notability. That's why the outside, lengthier treatments are needed to actually cover the book in reasonable depth, or there wouldn't be enough content to write an article. I commented not because this specific book's case isn't clear but for the precedent in future discussions. czar  04:25, 25 July 2017 (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.