Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello from Heaven!


 * 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 no consensus. This one seems to be on the edge of notability and could go either way. Sources provided by User:Oaktree b seem plausible, but weren't discussed at length here. There doesn't seem to be quite enough consensus to justify deleting the article at this time.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello from Heaven!

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I PRODed this, with the rationale: "Notability-tagged since 2013; appears to have been written by one of the book's authors. I can't find PW or Kirkus reviews, and no academic reviews, so fails WP:NBOOK." dePRODded it, rationale: "very easy to find sources for this bestselling book. Please search before you prod something". But "was an Apple bestseller" isn't a WP:NBOOK criterion, and the other link added (an interview with Alice Sebold) is just a passing mention. The other sources on the article are interviews, which are not independent. asilvering (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Social science. asilvering (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I remember reading this book shortly after it first came out, so it's been in print long enough to have achieved at least modest notability. Better sourcing that establishes notability would help, however. TH1980 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "In print for x years" is not one of the notability criteria for books. Can you find any independent sources that discuss the book at length? -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I concede your point. I've looked around online, and I've found independent sources are difficult to find, since no contemporaneous reviews that would establish notability have been web archieved.TH1980 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 18:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets mentioned in various places. Interviews do count towards notability, just can't be used as primary sources for information in the article.  A reliable source decided a book was so notable that instead of just writing a short review about it, they interviewed the writer.   D r e a m Focus  04:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews do not count towards notability. This is explicitly stated at WP:NBOOK: This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "advertise" as in they paid to have their book reviewed or themselves interviewed. See Interviews.   D r e a m Focus  14:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That essay is clearly designed for handling biography articles, and in that context, I do indeed agree with it. It does not appear to be about or for books, and it is an essay that explicitly contradicts the SNG here. (Not to mention that when someone is invited to a talk show, they're probably there to talk about the concept, eg "after death communication", more than their book per se. And I note that After-death communication redirects to Mediumship, for lack of notability.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY states It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. "Or" not "and".  The GNG is met.   D r e a m Focus  06:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * However, WP:GNG says that sources need to be independent to count towards notability. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop following me. Anyway, it clearly defines things as "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.  The media with the interview is independent of the person they are interviewing, no one paying them to advertise this.   D r e a m Focus  15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No I am not, this was on my Watchlist from when it was listed.
 * As seen in many other AfD discussions, interviews with the author aren't generally considered independent sources. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd generally want better sources, as the two I found below. It counts towards building their brand, but not so much toward Wiki notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with DreamFocus that some interviews may be considered for notability, specially when they have commentary but he writer, but in this case interviews do not help, because they make the author notable, not the book. We need citations to be about the book. Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage is either WP:PASSING mentions or not independent of the subject. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep one non-trivial review here: and the few others in the article. Discussion about it here, paywalled though . Seems GNG is met.  Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b Great find on the second one - that's an academic source that explicitly names the Guggenheims as the originators of the phrase "after-death communications". It doesn't discuss the work at length but does give context this article is really lacking. It also suggests to me that After-death communication is a viable article topic and doesn't need to be redirected to Mediumship. If anyone wants to argue for a Redirect to ADC, I'd support that and I can do a bit of tidying on that article. (What existed before it was redirected is not... great.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are not proper. The interviews only help the author's notability not the book. Mostly sources just mention the book. Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: of the sources presented, only the Chattooga Press review is substantial enough to count towards establishing notability. Looking for similar newspaper reviews turned up nothing usable. Discussion in Kwilecki 2009 amounts to a single paragraph (of which about a third is a long quote from the book). Interviews can contribute to establishing notability, and it's vaguely possible that one or more of the four offline sources cited would be substantial enough to be of use, but it doesn't seem like anyone's been able to access them to confirm one way or the other (they were all added to the article by the article creator, who hasn't edited since 2013). As such, I think we have to set them to one side and work with the sources at hand, which aren't sufficient to indicate WP:NB or WP:GNG is met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2022 (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.