Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodger Dogs to Fenway Franks


 * 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) feminist (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Dodger Dogs to Fenway Franks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NBOOK nowt found in a before search no references for the book apart from the author's own blog. Created by a sock Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The book had 2 editions, in 1988 and 1989, it also has around 4-5 good mentions at Google Books. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that having 2 editions is one of the criteria of WP:NBOOK but I may be wrong. Do you have any links to the mentions at google books? --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what stops you from doing a Google Book search on your own? Imho, Google Books and Google News search should be the first step for any editor who nominates the article for deletion.-- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In my nomination I said I could not find anything in a WP:BEFORE search which is why I am asking you for your 4-5 good links to see if they can be added to save this article. As per WP:HASREFS the argument to use is "Keep: References are available. I cannot add them myself, but here they are" and as per WP:MUSTBESOURCES the argument to avoid is "Keep. You should find sources, instead of deleting it". Dom from Paris (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go. The link has been at the top of this nomination all the time. I am not an expert in this subject but this is one link that could be used to improve the article. Here is another one. Weak keep, like I said.--Gprscrippers (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but I'm afraid were not getting close to the criteria I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of editions is relevant because that is an indicator of popularity. You will get more sources by doing things like this: . (GBooks' search engine will not return all instances of X on a search for "X", so you have to be more specific and look for "X"+Y and "X"+Y+Z and so on). There is a Kirkus Review and other commentary amongst that. James500 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the author, Bob Wood, has an article. James500 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can see the author is not notable. There is something I don't understand it has been argued that a bio of an author is not deletable if he has a notable work and you are arguing that a book cannot be deleted because the author has an article. I didn't think that notability was inherited. For a book to be notable it has to meet certain criteria and not just be popular. From what I can gather the kirkus review that you mention is not for this book but another one called "BIG TEN COUNTRY: A JOURNEY THROUGH ONE FOOTBALL SEASON". --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. Upon closer inspection the review is for "Big Ten" by the same author, though it discusses this book. I must be going blind. James500 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've found some coverage for this book and added it to the article. This is definitely one of those cases where the sourcing is buried insanely deep, as it took quite a bit of mining to find what I've added to the article. The impression I've gotten as a whole is that there's definitely more out there, it's just that the sourcing isn't really as easily found for reasons such as newspapers not being as good about putting pre-90s articles on the Internet. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be cited in academic sources - I also found this, this, and this. For what it's worth, I vaguely remember this coming out in the 80s and it getting its fair share of coverage. Now memories don't count as reliable sources on here, but all of the other stuff does infer that there is more coverage out there. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: the sources in the article, especially the Publishers Weekly, Chicago Tribune and 501 Baseball Books Fans Must Read Before They Die sources, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and point #1 of WP:BKCRIT. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:G5 doesn't apply since the article has numerous other contributors, and there are ample sources to get it past GNG. In any case, the creator of the article, User:Oddibe is not blocked. I'm guessing nom confused him with the similarly named User:OddibeKerfeld, who appears at the bottom of the last 50 edits, and is blocked as a sock (though not of Oddibe apparently.) Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with WP:GNG. This book has been reviewed by numerous sources. Auldhouse (talk) 16:23, 7 September 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.