Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyfriends with Girlfriends


 * 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 — Fly by Night  ( talk )  20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Boyfriends with Girlfriends

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article doesn't even attempt to assert notability. No sign it meets WP:NBOOK; all I could find are sites that attempt to sell the book. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - and expand. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article, but there certainly is plenty of good reason to expand it. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the article's creator, this !vote is unsurprising. Could you please explain, and supply reliable sources to verify, how this book satisfies the criteria WP:BKCRIT? — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (added !vote below). Here are 3 legitimate reliable-source reviews: Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Bay Area Reporter.   According to the Amazon.com page, this book also received a starred review from Booklist calling it "innovative, important", but that's paywalled so I can't confirm directly. More reliable sources would help the case for notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article were to be changed to reflect this, then I would be more than happy to withdraw this RfD. Yet, as it stands, the article comprises a single sentence and is still in violation of WP:DICT. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be added to an article for the article topic to be notable, it is sufficient that they exist: see WP:N. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Sadads (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the author, Alex Sánchez (author), based on the current (minimal) content. If the book is later established as notable, the redirect can be changed back into an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I went ahead and actually looked for content and expanded the article. There are now 12 sources in the article and while some (such as a nomination for a Lambda Award it didn't win) are trivial, there's more than enough to show that this book is notable. It's been reviewed in many sources and was placed on the ALA's Rainbow Bridge List, which is a pretty selective list of LGBT books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are available proving notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Clear Keep - several reviews outside of paid industry reviews (kirkus review and publishers weekly being the common ones) establishes notability very clearly. Fly By Night, next time, before you get trigger happy with afd, make sure that you actually do a source search, Sadads (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the article has changed massively since it was tagged. Before you accuse people of being trigger happy, make sure you check their background. When the article was tagged it comprised a single sentence. It was a clear AfD candidate when it was tagged. I take exception at your disrespectful and ill-considered comments. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple reliable-source reviews have now been identified, sufficiently establishing the book's notability.  Especially persuasive are the starred Booklist review plus others commenting on the book's importance.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:29, 19 July 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.