Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bestselling novels in the United States


 * 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. John254 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

List of bestselling novels in the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am also nominating the follwoing related (sub)pages:


 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1900s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1910s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1920s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1930s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1940s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1950s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1960s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1970s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1980s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1990s
 * List of bestselling novels in the United States in the 2000s

These pages are all taken from a single source (Publishers Weekly) which might make them a possible copyright violation. They conform to a set of standards used in the original publication which are not made reference to in the title of the pages nor in the subject of the pages. For example none of the Harry Potter books are included as they are not targeted to an adult audience, since these conditions are not mentioned the articles are in effect innacurate going by the titles and descriptions. Wikipedia should not just reproduce magazine features and convert them into artciles as has happened here. Guest9999 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm of two minds with this. Guest9999 is correct on the biases inherent in the selection. Also connected is the article titles which are misleading and inaccurate. I'm also mindful of the copyvio inherent in them as well but I expect some of the earlier decades may have passed into the public domain by now. Yet I feel the information is valuable to have available. It does indicate something about what people were buying and reading and the popularity of novels of the period. And I think Publishers Weekly has been a quite an authoritative voice in the industry at times. So I'm not rendering an opinion yet but will try to keep an eye on this discussion. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. Pigman 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all First, there is no copyvio--we are reporting on what they have listed. In the US, this is not a violation of their copyright, any more than a list of Academy awards is. . Second, the standard is that they have been selected the major reliable independent reference publication in the field, whose reviews are routinely used and totally accepted to establish notability for books and authors in Wikipedia. This is as clear and distinct a standard as can be expected. If the heading of t he article needs modification, it can be modified.DGG (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all. Not a copyright violation at all.  This is important almanac-style information from an authoritative industry source about book sales.  The page should, of course, explain what is and is not included in their methodology, but this is a matter to hash out on talk pages (or merely be bold and fix it), and not AFD.  This is good, encyclopedic, verified, neutral, discriminate information.  Therefore, we speedy keep for there is no valid deletion reason left. --JayHenry 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I did not mention it in the nomination notability is probably anissue - if there is no copyright violation. These lists are not a general compilation of the best selling novels in the US but a direct copy of lists manufactured by a single publication - with their own (as yet unkown)standards and measures. I feel significant coverage by independant secondary sources about or makinf reference to the Publishers Weekly lists and not just of best selling books in general is required under WP:NN. Effectively this article is not actualy on the best selling novels in the US (as titled) but on the Publishers Weekly articles about the best selling novels in the US - are these articles actually notable? They might be but no evidence is given in the (Wikipedia) artciles - not a single source. Guest9999 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Are you serious? About three and a half seconds on Google can establish that notability isn't even close to an issue. , , , .  Also, you can easily determine that the lists are widely reproduced in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers, and have been, continuously, for a century.  These pages are based on statistics that PW compiles not on "Publishers Weekly articles."  These are like statistics compiled by Nielsen or Billboard.  They are, in fact, a general compilation of the best-selling novels.  It would be fine to add data from other best-seller lists, that also attempted a general compilation of sales date, but you've yet to come up with anything like a valid deletion reason.  Suggest withdrawal. --JayHenry 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * comment perhaps the ed. above has not seen the widespread acceptance of these lists as a criterion of notability.,  Awards which are individually notable are notable awards. DGG (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Sorry I don't really understand what you mean, however I do not feel that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a good reason for inclusion. Guest9999 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep if not copyvio I am not convinced about the copyvio claim, because these are being published as fact, without any editorial twist on them, and it's just the fact that's being reported: little different than using foreign government sources (which unlike US gov't sources are copyright protected) for lists of populations/postal codes of the cities, provinces, etc. Why keep? Because this is notable almanac like data that is encyclopedic in nature. Which books were best sellers in 1964 are encyclopedic factoids, not trivia, and those factoids enhance the books' notability. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep From the input of DGG and JayHenry, I think the only reservation I had (copyvio) is satisfied positively. I do think work needs to be done to clarify the titles and contents of the articles but that is do-able. Pigman 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Publishers Weekly stats are an authorative source on the US publishing industry. Such lists of titles are not protected by copyright. I agree that the criteria used by PW should be included in the header of each list to avoid confusion. Espresso Addict 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could we find other sources so these are "meta lists"--lists that compare different best seller lists; e.g. integrate New York Times, PW, etc.? As for the debate, I'm leaning towards keep--these article titles do seem to be encyclopedic/good reference material. Jason McHuff 05:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see the problem with this. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  08:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If it's a copyvio, do the legal research or ask the Foundation lawyer, but we can't reasonably debate that here.  Similarly, if Publisher's Weekly is not the best source (say, New York Times is?) then make an argument either on the page or village pump, and if necessary simply redo the list (which can be done as an editorial matter subject to consensus, and doesn't need a deletion vote).  If there are more than one notable lists, consider making a table.  Either way, simply deleting this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  This is an immensely useful organization system for readers to use to peruse Wikipedia articles, and to find information.  Wikidemo 19:36, 26 October 2007 (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.