Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Sin: London and its vices


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

City of Sin: London and its vices

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

routine reviews only. repeated buzzwords from a review does not make for notability. Only 143 library holdings in WorldCat  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What criteria do you use to distinguish a "routine" review from a non-routine one? BKCRIT does not say that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in WorldCat. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It easily passes WP:NBOOK which states, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." The page already cites four such works and here's a fifth. Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Unambigously and clearly meets WP:NBOOK - The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Nomination purpose is unclear. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Strong delete - These reviews look to be just above blog entries. The worst part is that ref #4 is about an entirely different book. Also, there are only three not four refs because the same one is used twice; anyone who actually checked them would have know that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 4 is not a completely different book. The book was published in London by Simon & Schuster as City of Sin: London and its Vices in 2010 and, in New York by St Martin's (Macmillan) in 2011, as The Sexual History of London.   There are reviews of both editions in all the mainstream respectable press such as The Times; The Observer; Literary Review; New York Journal of Books; &c.  Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:VMS Mosaic, those reviews are absolutely not blog entries. That is utterly false. Per WP:NBOOK, a book is notable if 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. The Guardian and The Independent are daily newspapers in the United Kingdom not blogs. Please be informed before commenting. AusLondonder (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they were blog entries. I said they were just one step above blog entries. Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:VMS Mosaic - your attack on The Guardian is unexpected. The Guardian is generally regarded as a highly valuable source on Wikipedia. I question whether you would make such comments about an American newspaper? No evidence reviews were online only, anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most American newspapers are not worth the cheap paper they are printed on. I have no problem calling complete crap complete crap, and most American newspapers are complete crap. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what your personal viewpoints on newspapers are, they are still considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to have this changed then you will have to argue against newspapers as sources at WP:RS- however I will say that it is extremely unlikely that they will completely consider newspapers unusable. Also, it is not as easy as you would think to have a review printed in a newspaper. Most have their own set staff of reviewers and when they bring in others it is usually because they have some credentials that make them stand out above others. Now I will say that some newspapers will reprint blog reviews, but those are usually clearly marked and the ones that do this are actually pretty few and far between. The Seattle PI is the only one I know that does this on a regular basis and even then they only accept blogs that run through BlogCritics.org, which does have some form of editorial oversight. However in this instance the two newspaper reviews are by staff members. I'm not a huge fan of the New York Journal of Books, but they have an editorial staff and have been quoted in enough RS to where they'd be considered reliable. This makes these reviews reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines, regardless of your personal stance on newspapers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As others have said, meets criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK with the reviews already provided in the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. At this point in time newspaper reviews and articles are usable as reliable sources, and there are multiple outlets that have covered this work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article as presently referenced meets WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (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.