Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucial Confrontations


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Crucial Confrontations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be primarily a promotional article for the book which is its subject. References are primarily to the work(s) of one or more of the authors. Fails WP:AUTHOR and fails WP:GNG. Creation was by a SPA. Geoff Who, me?  17:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep - the page views suggest that their is an audience for information about this book, and a quick Google News search found several articles pointing towards it's importance as a Best Seller (proving notability). Perhaps we should think about bringing in references and removing peacock stuffs, before keeping. At very least, it should have some tags, Sadads (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NBOOK - article page views are irrelevant; if being a best seller is notable, then WP:NBOOK needs to be changed. ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's less that it's a bestseller, and more that it has been reflected on in the press significantly, beyond the fact that it is a best seller, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - being on the NYT bestseller list doesn't mean much in itself- there are 15+ categories and 35 books on each list! I can't find any independent reviews or coverage about the book, unfotunately, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Sionk (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, if... there are more references added to prove its notability, including more details on its 'Bestseller' status.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find coverage to demonstrate notability. No evidence it was a NYT bestseller, though that could mean any place in any of its charts, general or subject-based, and even if it was a bestseller in those terms, that's not grounds for automatic notability. The previous book Crucial Conversations got a bit more coverage (not all are necessarily reliable sources) and it might be possible to create an article on that and merge some of this there. But not certain even the previous book is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only coverage out there appears to be the authors'/publisher's own publicity. With only the book itself to use as a source there is no basis for an article here. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete no evidence to meet WP:NBOOK. And no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (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.