Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldheart Canyon


 * 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 Speedy Keep pretty much per Coolabahapple's analysis, and gross failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Coldheart Canyon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Uncited stub for more than 3 years Killer Moff (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) And on, and on, and on. Another failure of before, if you ask me. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This book was published in 2001 so the reviews aren't visible to Google mostly, but there were tons of them when it came out, so it easily meets WP:BKCRIT criterion #1: "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, bestseller lists, and reviews." Just for instance, it was reviewed in:
 * OH, THE HORROR, THE HORROR!Orlando Sentinel, The (FL) (Published as THE ORLANDO SENTINEL) - December 23, 2001
 * HOLLYWOOD HORRORS - Clive Barker takes on the dead souls of showbiz in 'Coldheart Canyon'San Francisco Chronicle (CA) (Published as THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE) - December 15, 2001
 * CHUTZPAH ASIDE, BARKER'S NEW BOOK IS THINCapital Times, The (Madison, WI) - December 7, 2001
 * The Herald (United Kingdom): Animal instinct Herald, The/The Sunday Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) (Published as Herald and the Sunday Herald, The (Glasgow, Scotland)) - November 18, 2001
 * FICTION REVIEW IN HOLLYWOOD, EVEN THE GHOSTS HAVE AN AGENT - FICTIONAL ACTORS AND LONG-DEAD SCREEN LEGENDS HAVE A PARTY AT CLIVE BARKER'S HOUSEOregonian, The (Portland, OR) - November 11, 2001
 * SCARY MONSTERS, SUPER CREEPS - IN HIS COMEBACK NOVEL, CLIVE BARKER CELEBRATES DEMONS IN CLASSIC HOLLYWOOD.Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) (Published as Sun-Sentinel) - November 11, 2001
 * THE YOMIURI SHIMBUN/DAILY YOMIURI: Barker tests boundaries of bizarreJapan News, The (Tokyo, Japan) (Published as Daily Yomiuri and The Yomiuri Shimbun (Tokyo, Japan)) - October 28, 2001
 * Clive Barker fills 'Canyon' with secrets, dead soulsUSA TODAY (Arlington, VA) (Published as USA TODAY) - October 26, 2001
 * Clive does Hollywood - Horror writer has his fun with TinseltownKansas City Star, The (MO) - October 14, 2001
 * The Daily Telegraph: Crunch crunch Daily Telegraph, The/The Sunday Telegraph (London, England) (Published as Daily Telegraph, The (London, England)) - October 6, 2001
 * BARKER GOES `HOLLYWOOD'Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) (Published as Rocky Mountain News (CO)) - October 5, 2001
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per 192.+, and if you want some online presence, here's a starred review in Publishers Weekly, PW's later audiobook review, Kirkus Reviews , a negative review in the Los Angeles Times, and Janet Maslin in The New York Times. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The sources aren't in the article?  WP:SOFIXIT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, "Uncited stub for more than 3 years" and?, this should have been speedied as no legitimate reason given for deletion, anyhow, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with numerous useable reviews as listed above,, when WorldCat lists library holdings of over 1000 libraries with multiple editions thats a pretty good indicator of notableness, then entering "Coldheart Canyon clive barker book reviews" in gsearch its a nobrainer. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2018 (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.