Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash: A Mother, A Son, and the Journey from Grief to Gratitude


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Crash: A Mother, A Son, and the Journey from Grief to Gratitude

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

over detailed plot summary of non notable book; no encyclopedic content, just sentimentalism and advocacy.  DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, not sure if this article is trying to be about the book or the author (who may be wikinotable for their own standalone?), anyway, there are some reviews on Crash ie. HuffPost - here, The Herald News - here (although both reader-contributed?), Publishers Weekly (here), and Booklist (here), appears on a PW iBooks US Bestseller List, although some editors may say that this is enough to technically meet WP:NBOOK i reckon it needs some more. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) HuffPo contributors are unreliable. Booklist and PW are trade publications (routine coverage). No additional reviews from the publisher's site. No acceptable redirect targets.  czar  02:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reviews from Publishers Weekly and Booklist absolutely do count for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. Haukur (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you propose that we write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic on the basis of those two publications? (Also do you know how many thousands of books would fall into the same permastub criteria if that where the bar was set?) czar  00:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thousands of books are certainly notable but I wouldn't claim to know how many. It might be interesting to do a Fermi estimate at some point. But note that whatever the number is, the number of non-notable books is far higher. Even books by notable authors from established publishers often fail to get two independent reviews. It's true that for books (or other topics) that only barely meet our notability criteria, we are often only in a position to write a short article. Maybe a couple of paragraphs summarizing the book's contents and one paragraph summarizing a couple of reviews. But short articles can still be quite useful. In some cases, of course, we can merge to series or author articles if we feel readers are better served that way. Haukur (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have both of these paywalled "reviews" in front of me and they're each a single paragraph, i.e., minimal actual review and 90% synopsis. I can't see how this can be the basis for writing an article nevertheless asserting notability. In my experience, this is par for PW and Booklist, which are used for librarians to make purchase orders (trade publications), not to assess literary merit, hence why I called this coverage routine. czar  08:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Czar. A book should have more than just WP:ROUTINE coverage in trade publications that cover every book. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (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.