Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee (novel)


 * 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. The consensus seems to be that the article satisfies WP:NB, due to the reviews by Kirkus and the New York Press. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable. Seems self-published. The book has a review at Kirkus, which doesn't mean much. It seems any self-published writer can pay them $500 to get a review published there. https://selfpublishingadvice.org/publishing-is-a-kirkus-review-worth-the-price/ Kirkus promises you a review in 7–9 weeks for $425. You can purchase an expedited review for $575, and they will deliver it in 4–6 weeks. They tell you the review will be 250–300 words. Not sure if the same is true about Publishers Weekly, maybe not, since it is a rather negative review. (I had to create an account to do this AFD since I could not complete the procedure without an account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with article on Tito Perdue. I see that the article on Tito Perdue is up for deletion but it seems that it would be more sensible to merge the book with an author rather than vice versa. Vorbee (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NB. Kirkus Reviews is a serious publication and the book was not self-published, so the nominator's speculations about that are baseless. Smetanahue (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anybody can pay Kirkus $500 for a review. I'm not doubting that Kirkus is not serious in writing a review if you pay them. See the link from selfpublishingadvice above. But a Kirkus review has even less importance than a review on Amazon.com. At least the reviews on Amazon.com are honest and not paid advertising.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. I suspect you are being deliberately misleading when you say that. I don't know why you want to delete the article, or why your account name is the same as the author. But I will ignore that and focus on Kirkus. Put simply, that particular Kirkus review was done before Kirkus started offering paid reviews, during this period they were one of the more respected and reliable publishers of reviews. In 2009, they started offering paid reviews for indie authors in addition to their ongoing unpaid reviews. The "indie reviews" are clearly marked, and this review is not one. This has been debated twice on a Wikipedia noticeboard, please do examine Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190, both of which support what I just said. The review in this article is from 1991 and therefore is considered to be a reliable and independent source on Wikipedia. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be attacking me, I was not aware that Kirkus offers paid reviews only more recently. Thank you for clearing things up about Kirkus. But Kirkus reviews over 7000 titles per year, are all these over 7000 titles per year notable enough for a wikipedia article? I don't think so, but maybe others think different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Perdue (talk • contribs)
 * I am entitled to be suspicious, there are Wikipedia policies to do with people editing articles about themselves and their work. I abide by these and my books are not on Wikipedia until someone else decides they should be, and if that happens I would not try to have those articles deleted. In the spirit of linking with shortcuts, they are WP:OWN and WP:COI. Plus I have no way of knowing if you are impersonating the author or not, and don't even know how to proceed with that concern.
 * It is not up to what I think or you think or what any individual volunteer here thinks about notability. The WP:NB guideline is very clear, and it is easy to see that this article is notable.
 * It is very simple, all books that meet this criteria are notable on Wikipedia. To answer your question, my understanding is that if a title reviewed by Kirkus were also reviewed by one other reliable reviewer, they would meet the notability guideline and be eligible for an article, the number of articles on Wikipedia appears to be unlimited so I don't think it goes further than that. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 11:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 11:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep according to the WP:NB notability guideline. The book is reviewed by Kirkus in 1991, New York Press in 2001 and 2003, Los Angeles Times in 2007, and Publishers Weekly in 1991. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Book has been written about by multiple sources, making it notable per WP:NBOOK. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable per Frayae and Tillerh11. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. James500 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per the reviews posted above by Frayæ. North America1000 02:44, 30 June 2018 (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.