Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Show Fun Facts (book)


 * 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. Secret account 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Late Show Fun Facts (book)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable pursuant to WP:NN. Getmoreatp (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Book by well known television personality, and seems to have had moderately significant sales. LotLE × talk  09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (I'm assuming that Amazon.com and a Facebook Fan Page don't count. Closest thing I've found is this, but is that "significant"?) Getmoreatp (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep newsmax, Waterloo Record, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun Times all write about this book. At least the Chicago Sun Times is a full article.Ikip (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure it's a notable book, but this is not an encyclopedia article about the book. "Here are a few examples of fun facts" pretty well sums it up.  This is the lone contribution by someone who spent a couple of weeks on Wikipedia and wrote about a book that he or she got a good laugh out of.  I don't see any merit in keeping this unless someone wants to replace it with an entirely different article.  I'll reconsider if anyone who wants it kept wants to write about the book itself.  Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if the fun facts listed were deleted from the article it would be more encyclopedic. ArcAngel (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and redirect to the Late Show article. No need for this to be spun out separately. Eusebeus (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Eusebeus. The book may be notable, but this article fails miserably to establish that. And I don't think there is enough to say about the book on its own to merit its own article (much of the notability appears to be that it's tied to notable person/show) so (editorial decision) better located as a sentence or two in the show's article. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 8 December 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.