Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Medicine


 * 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. Courcelles 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Deadly Medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This publication fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Sources cover the actual events, like this book, but do not cover this book. Note one of the sections is supported by a very short source that actually discusses the movie, a derivative work of zero note. The source doesn't actually cover this work. JFHJr (㊟) 15:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I find it highly doubtful that a book on the NYT bestseller list for 7 weeks is not the subject of multiple, independent reviews and thus a pass of criterion 1 of the SNG for Books. Checking... Carrite (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not finding much. Surprising. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The best I can see is that the TV movie did get a bit of coverage, so it might be worthwhile to make this an article about the tv movie and book equally? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just because a book is a bestseller doesn't mean it's going to meet WP:BK.  It might not pass WP:42, no matter how many copies were sold.  However, a book that sold very poorly might have lots and lots of WP:RS that satisfy WP:42.  Notability for books is never based on sales alone.  It's based on significant independent multiple coverage.  Same notability standards as for any article on Wikipedia.  Simple enough, huh?  Qworty (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and speedy close. Carrite is on target to suggest that a significant run on a major national best-seller list is a strong indication of reviews and similar coverage. And it takes only a cursory GNews search to turn up a feature review in the LA Times.. It's also covered in a multi-book review in an Austin newspaper and in a brief profile of the authors in a piece in the San Jose Mercury News . It's evident, as is regularly pointed out in deletion discussions, that standard internet searches, especially Google web searches, are notoriously ineffective in turning up print coverage of books and their authors, particularly pre-the turn of the millennium. Amazon.com also shows a Publisher's Weekly review, another strong indicator of notability. Worldcat shows the title held by nearly 400 libraries, a strong showing for 25-year-old nonfiction. With all these indicators of notability, and no sign of a reliable search having been done to support the deletion rationale, deletion is clearly inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If notability means anything at all for books, a NYT bestseller is notable. We adopt the standards the world uses, and that's the key US standard.  DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this was only reliant on the few reviews for the book that are still findable on the web, I'd probably have voted that this redirect to the author's page or get deleted. However considering that this book was later used to make a made for TV movie that gained a considerable amount of coverage, this pushes it from a delete/redirect into a "keep" for me. This entry can serve as a page for both the book and the movie. There's enough here to argue that it passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable as a New York Times bestseller and from the reviews it received (including Publisher's Weekly, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz pointed out). AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment — With all due respect to Wolfowitz, a movie review is not substantial coverage of the book. Any basis on this coverage is utter nonsense, and makes me wonder if the voters actually read the nomination or the article about the book. This is a disingenuous vote at best, and so are the collateral votes based on his vote. Second, one "book review" at hand is not only negative, but is arguably insubstantial. I hope admin will re-list this debate or close in consideration of these points. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballo W. and AuthorAuthor above. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 7 May 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.