Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackthorn Winter


 * 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 Witdrawn by nominator. Technical 13 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Blackthorn Winter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks assertion of notability and has no references, and I can't find any sources anywhere to cite that would suggest notability. Technical 13 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NBOOK, no sources found on Google.Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book reviews at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews establish notability. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , Add those sources to the article and I'll simply withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kirkus is a paid reviewing service (see https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author-services/indie/ ). A review there does not establish notability.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Only reviews labeled with "Kirkus Indie" are paid reviews. If it isn't labeled as such, then the review wasn't paid for. Not all reviews on that website are pay for play type of deals. In this specific instance this review was not purchased by the publisher through Kirkus Indie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it were just the reviews from PW and KR, then I'd be more leery about keeping this article. However I do note that I was able to find reviews from Kliatt, the Horn Book Guide, and the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. There is also a mention in this book from the NY public library, which listed it as a recommended book for teenagers via a committee. There was also a little mini review from the Toledo Blade, but I didn't include that since it was so short and part of a list. It's not the strongest keep I'd give it, but the three reviews from the places I mentioned above mixed with the PW, KR, and SLJ reviews give it enough oomph to keep. The problem with trade reviews is that while they're flawed for obvious reasons, there has been no good consensus as of yet to completely discredit trade reviews entirely unless the reviews are in a format that's so obviously unusable (IE, Kirkus Indie) that we can't deny that they're unusable. Part of the reason trade reviews can work towards notability is that the trades aren't completely indiscriminate in what books they review- PW only reviews a small portion of what they receive- and the reviews are not always uniformly positive, meaning that this isn't a positive review mill for publishers. I have no doubt that in about 5 years we'll have reached a consensus that will make trade reviews relatively unusable except from certain places, but right now we don't have that consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:58, 2 February 2014 (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.