Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart's Blood


 * 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   redirect to Juliet Marillier. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Heart's Blood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book, fails to meet critera of WP:NBOOK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keri (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - abjectly fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello I do not know if i should be writing here at all. However, since you say this is not a notable book, I will request you to check the book review site goodreads.com. This book is popular and there are people in favor of it. I read through the notability criteria, however if you guys do not put up a good book, how will people know about it? Secondly on the page of Juliet Marillier almost all books have some page on it, except a few like Heart's blood. Having a article on it with improve the page. bigjala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjala (talk • contribs) 04:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodreads is not a reliable source because its content is user generated. The notability guidelines for books are at WP:NBOOK - do you have reliable sources that demonstrate that this book meets those guidelines? It is not Wikipedia's purpose to let people know about "good books", that's the publisher's job.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Juliet Marillier. Goodreads has never been considered a reliable source for the reasons above, as well as because it's been shown in the past that info there is easily manipulated. I think Robert Stanek has shown exactly how far someone will go to alter data on a site where users can submit reviews and/or edit data, so any site that allows users to alter data will be incapable of showing notability. Besides, popularity doesn't equal out to notability. It makes it more likely that sources can be found, but that's not a guarantee. I think that in this instance a redirect to the author's page will be best. I also notice that her page is in need of some serious editing as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   00:23, 29 July 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.