Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry, A History


 * 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 SNOW keep.  Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Harry, A History

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I would say it meets N, it's been covered by USA Today (as referenced in the article), The J. K. Rowling foreword might also hold some weight. chandler · 05:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a fan's spinoff/derivative work which would not have stood alone on its own. Harry Potter is a phenomenon. Would it have been covered by USA Today if it weren't related to H.P.? At best, it should be merged into HP fandom or similar. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it would have been notable or not if it was of another subject. That's like saying, "Would Harry Potter have been popular if it was a totally different book?". I don't see your argument that "just because it's a book about a book its not notable" to be very convincing. It's neither a spin off or a derivative work, it's a non-fiction autobiography about the authors relation to the Harry Potter fandom. chandler · 07:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This 4-month old book has a sales rank of #7,158 in the "Books" category on Amazon. Why exactly are we wasting valuable space to promote this? How exactly is it notable? Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop acting stupid, this isnt promoting anything. Or are every article on Wikipedia in your eyes a promotion of the subject? And how it is notable, it's been covered by sources independent of the publisher. I don't see how the sales matter? Wikipedia doesn't have a limit of how many book articles can exist, and there's certainly not a criteria called "Has to be top 5,000 sold book on Amazon" chandler · 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Neither of you mentioned this was on the New York Times Bestseller List which is a pretty good indication that a book is notable and if the site for the book (http://www.harryahistory.com/aboutthebook.html) can be believed, Kirkus Reviews (highly regarded review magazine and website in the literary world) and The Scotsman have also reviewed the book. That makes it at least 4 reliable sources about the book, not counting the trivial mention about the content already included -- thus meeting WP:GNG. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if book reviews or being (not 1st) on the NYT bestseller list was something that helped notability so I didnt mention it. chandler · 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is mentioned in several independent, reliable sources. Tavix (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to the massive popularity of the Harry Potter franchise, every spinoff/derivative work, especially one marketed on a high-traffic fansite, will end up being a "bestseller" at some point in time. That's not indicative of notability. This book could have appeared on NYT's list for only a single week--and if we were to create a separate article for every work that has ever appeared on a weekly NYT list, we'd have millions of additional articles to make.


 * Amazon's cumulative sales rank in the thousands and the Google News test (only 58 articles that mentioned this book in 2008) do not support the assertion that this work is notable in any way.


 * Also, to chandler, I'm curious if you have a conflict of interest in any way? Are you affiliated with Leaky, or work for them? Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith, Wikipedian06?  Jd 027  (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No I am/do not. chandler · 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since you only remarked "Non-notable", perhaps I should just leave my remarks at this: notable. However, thank you for pointing out the fact that there are at least 58 articles covering the book, more than enough to serve for "multiple published works." Millions of additional articles? Come on. But even if we had to, if they all met WP:BK, we could. And yes, being on a New York Times best-seller list is, in fact, indicative of notability.  Jd 027  (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep NYT bestseller. I don't care how it got there, it did.  Add in the sources shown, and we've got an article. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep NYT bestseller, multiple independant reviews. Edward321 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:56, 28 March 2009 (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.