Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Time in St. Cloud


 * 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. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Killing Time in St. Cloud

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication that this is a notable work. Neither named author is of the stature that their works would automatically be considered notable, and this does not appear to have been a bestseller or otherwise influential as a work. BD2412 T 02:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Guest herself barely scrapes GNG, this book doesn't. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * rubbish, being the author of Ordinary People is enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR let alone all the other wikinotable books (including this one) that she has written. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be rude. Notability is not inherited. Because an authour is notable doesn't mean any and all works contributed by that authour are noteable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Guest, however, is not at the level of a Shakespeare or a Hemingway or a Heinlein, where everything they have written is automatically independently notable. BD2412  T 01:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * agree, but with the numerous independent reviews of this book, as brought out below, it is wikinotable under point no. 1. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing came up on a Google search, but I was able to find a wealth of sourcing via Newspapers.com - thankfully I was able to snag one of the subscriptions! I've fleshed out the article accordingly. What say either of you? ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Non-notable works get reviews all the time, though this does appear to satisfy prong 1 of WP:NBOOK. I am still skeptical. BD2412  T 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Guest has written a few bestsellers, and this book was reviewed by The Washington Post, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Orlando Sentinel, Ottawa Citizen, Star Tribune, Los Angeles Times, among other newspapers and periodicals. Caro7200 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, if you can't access Newspapers.com it would be difficult to find those sources since none of them come up in a Google search and Newspapers.com would hide the results behind a paywall. On a side note, I would like to point everyone towards Newspapers.com - they give out some subscription for free. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd still tend to delete/merge with Guest's article. I agree more sources is a good thing (Kirkus does paid-for) but publishers get reviews, that's part of their raison d'être. The book isn't otherwise notable though, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviews are less common than you'd think. A book put out through a mainstream publisher and/or with a notable author is more likely to receive reviews than one that isn't, but it's still very much not a guarantee. It's more likely that they won't, to be honest. For example, only a relatively small percentage of the books put out through say, Penguin, in the past year gained enough reviews to pass notability guidelines. Their book The Duke Undone only received three reviews through trade publications - and some don't even gain that, which contradicts the idea that publishers can demand reviews. Another example would be Laurell K Hamilton's books, many of which were on the NYT Bestseller List but failed to get coverage otherwise.
 * Part of the reason that reviews are still considered to establish notability is that while the biggest and most well-known books may make it seem like reviews are commonplace, those are the exception and not the norm. For every Stephen King tome there's at least a hundred put out that same week, all through mainstream publishers, which gain little to no coverage other than perhaps via SPS. The review guideline helps prevent Wikipedia from covering only the most mainstream of books. Now that said, I've voiced my support in the past for raising the necessary number of reviews from 2 to 3 and wouldn't mind bringing this point up at NBOOK if you would be interested in voicing support for that as well. I'm not really a fan of the two reviews are enough guideline. (Sorry if this comes across as a bit soap box-ish, but there are some who wish to remove reviews as a sign of notability entirely and I strongly oppose that since books typically don't gain enough other coverage to establish notability. It'd effectively limit us to only the very most mainstream, which in turn would negatively impact our coverage of minority authors and academic/scholarly works since the latter may only gain coverage from reviews - and they are even less likely to receive reviews than mainstream fare.) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with plenty of reviews, article now reflects this (thanks to ). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per the source additions to the article performed by, appears to meet point #1 of WP:BOOKCRIT, having received multiple reviews in reliable sources that appear from what I can see to be non-trivial in nature. I cannot fully access the articles to the point of being able to read them; I can only see the minuscule articles in a preview format, but they all appear to be full length articles. North America1000 16:14, 23 April 2021 (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.