Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop


 * 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 per multiple reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Soon to come book, no independent reliable sources found about it, the author doesn't have a wikipedia page so it's not notable through that. -Zeus-u 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources at        . Also a bit about the author's background here - . There appear to be 2 different titles for the book in different provinces.  '  ArticlesFor Redemption  '' 01:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be a page for a book that doesn't exist (yet?). Vampyrecat (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has pages for lots of things that are yet to exist (Jackass 3D, Bel Ami (2011 film)) and some things that will never exist Star Wars sequel trilogy, Something's Got to Give). '  ArticlesFor Redemption  '' 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

*Delete while its true that LA times covered A lady gaga bio, it didnt cover THIS bio, which is from a nonnotable publisher (follow the bouncing isbn). the la times article book, from overlook, probably deserves an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) changed to keep, as it now appears true that there are 2 editions of this book in 2 publishing regions, under the one author name.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It will be about a notable person, but at present, there are no references on the article itself and it's almost a speedy delete for lack of content.  I'll gladly change to a full-blown keep if it's significantly expanded.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Los Angeles Times item is enough to establish notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BK. The sort of advance notices cited don't mean that "anticipation of the book is notable in its own right" - that's meant for something like a new Harry Potter. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to a one-line mention in the Lady Gaga article, if there is sufficient source for that. When the book comes out, it may be appropriate to remove the redirect and improve the article to reflect release and reviews. By the way, the LA Times review is indeed of this book, I've reasonably confirmed that the article is correct and this is being released in the U.S. under one name and in the U.K under another. So the Brits and the Yanks can have a war over which title gets the prize, its very own shiny new Wikipedia article. Both would be mentioned at Lady Gaga. As to the Lady herself, my, my, my. Perhaps I should do more research on this. Tough job, but someone's got to do it. --Abd (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) see new !vote below. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How have you 'reasonably confirmed that the (LA Times) article is correct and this is being released in the U.S. under one name and in the U.K under another'? SunCreator (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at ArticlesForRedemption's sources above and at the L.A. Times article. Notice for Amazon UK. Notice same author, same subject. And more, I saw more when I looked. Not difficult. Sure, to say "same book, different titles" in an article might require better sources. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the obvious. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Lady Gaga until such time as it can satisfy WP:CRYSTALBALL. SunCreator (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Abd below - connecting US and UK to same author. SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping  11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. (change to !vote above) There is adequate evidence that the release of this book, both in the U.S. and in Great Britain, is imminent. The LA Times article is evidence of notability, and there is plenty of other mention of this, Amazon is offering the book(s), etc, so the guideline at WP:BK is satisfied. A temporary Merge could be done, but why bother? No Harm. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The author of this book is Virginia Blackburn, who uses the pseudonym Emily Herbert. ArticlesForRedemption provided the source for this, but didn't make it explicit. I'm suspecting that the author, under one name or the other, is sufficiently notable for an article, but have not verified this yet. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LA Times article says overlookpress and overlookpress.com gives Emily Herbert. So yes, same book and have amended above to keep. Good work Abd SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete Besides the fact i hate lady gaga, this book is not very notable. Str8cash (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nota bene: --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as per ABD. The article is able to make a sourced, notable statement at least about the two titles for the same book, I see no harm in skipping what I expect will be a merge followed soon by an unmerge.  --Joe Decker (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability as evidenced by secondary source coverage. Also, poker face. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (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.