Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Team, One Dream


 * 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   delete. Consensus appears to be that this book is not yet notable. StarM 03:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One Team, One Dream

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notability criteria for books lightspeedchick (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete small publisher, no reviews--not notable. JJL (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also, In the 10,000 libraries indexed by WorldCat, none of them have this book and its sales rank is nearly 400,000  at Barnes and Noble, not that great for a recent release. Icewedge (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not Delete This book, yes, is by a small publisher, however this book is a "big deal" in Virginia. The books are being ordered by the dozens by bookstores, specialty stores, sporting events in the area.

Over 12 media sources can be cited to show that, although the book isn't a "bestseller" (although it was #17 in baseball books in 2008), it is very notable in a small area.

Also, this book is currently under consideration for film by one major and one minor producer.

This book is every bit as "notable" as The Pacific Between and that was created by the author and allowed to stay. Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what I need to do to save this, I will do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmanning19 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Search in the search box for wp: notability and wp: references. You need to cite newspaper and magazine (or other media) coverage of this book. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, please see article Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That helps a lot. My second suggestion would be to discuss what the reviews and media coverage said about the author and the book in the article. If it's a notable subject that needs to be demonstrated by encyclopedic writing about the subject as it's been discussed by established media. Why did they write about? Why is it important? But you have to demonstrate its importance without saying "this important book" or hyping it. But I think saying something along the lines of "The Roanoke Times discussed X,Y,Z regarding the book" might be okay. I'll take another look tomorrow. As it reads now the article is a bit promotional and, as I understand it, plot summaries are discouraged. I hope that makes some sense. Like I said I'll ahve another look later and see if I can't help out a bit.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So, it won't be deleted until we can talk further? Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. The process will take a few days (at least). And if the article is improved and rewritten according to Wikipedia guidelines, you can also ask commenters to reassess. But I recommend making the article as strong as possible as soon as possible. Even if it is deleted, you can resubmit it later with improvements, but we'll see what we can do this go around. I've also asked a more experienced editor to take a look and offer some insights. Good night. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll do everything I can. I appreciate all of your help. Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as some notability has been established by coverage through a few independent secondary sources. I do, however, recommend some good amount of copyediting as it seems like there is an obvious conflict of interest. I will give the appropriate friendly warning as a result. MuZemike  ( talk ) 07:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was told I could ask questions here. What could I do to make my entry nuetral? It seems as nuetral as humanly possible to me right now. Not being a wiseass, just asking for help. Cbmanning19 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very strong Delete Not in any US WorldCat library, according to WorldCat. Sometimes a new book from an established author can be notable none the less, but that the LC hasnt yet bothered to catalog it does indicate extremely strongly against any possible notability. The only loophole is that sometimes they do not pay serious attention to material on really fringe subjects, but for them not to catalog a work of ordinary fiction is, in my opinion, definitive proof of non-notability. The nature of the publisher has attracted some controversy--It is a print on demand publisher, and I regard its products as self-published author-subsidized publications unless proven otherwise. The references are human interest stories on a local author, every one of them--this is essentially public relations. Local news outlets typically give a courtesy interview or review regardless of importance of the work. What is necessary is actual reviews from major Reliable review sources, if there ever are any. If this book is notable at this time, every published book is. I consider it a valid speedy as entirely promotional. The nature of the writing in the article is further proof--we couldnt use this sort of description even if the book were important. But there's no point in asking the ed. to rewrite in the absence of evidence of notability.  DGG (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a few comments in response. 1) this is a work of non-fiction. 2) it's a work of non-fiction about a sports team, so the "local" papers covering that region would be well positioned to comment on the book and it's perhaps not surprising that it's of more regional than national interest (I think this is rather true of any regional subject matter) 3) I think your response is perhaps overly strong given the article creator's willingness to address concerns and solicit input. The article's promotional writing style can certainly be corrected. That being said, there is a real question about notability. I haven't read the reviews, but I think that's a good place to start. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * when I see 'based on " and a list of characters, it seems either fiction or disguised fiction. I admit to not having read the book, but I did read the article. If its a personal reminiscence, just as likely to be non-notable. And if its proponent here says "a big deal in virginia" its not a big deal--notability for a book has to be wider than just local. And "being ordered in dozens" in not best seller status. Being ordered in thousands, that would be. And, CoM, there are no truly third party reviews to read.  DGG (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references and external links do not give rise to any conclusion of notability. No claim of notability is made, and DGG's search for the book in libraries is also persuasive. Bongo  matic  05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just to correct the statement from DGG, this book in in the worldcat database, its listed here, but only listed in a single library. I could only locate a single source for this book, a very brief mention "SOSALEM NEWS." Roanoke Times & World News. 14 Nov 2008. SA3., saying that the author would be appearing at a Barnes & Noble, it did say BTW, that the book was a "fact based account of the 1997 William Byrd High School baseball Virginia State Champions."  But all of that does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CoM, you've been very helpful and I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmanning19 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(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.