Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runelight


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Apparently there is some disagreement as to how the notability guideline affects a borderline case like this when the sources are single sentence comments about the subject. That needs to be clarified first at WP:NBOOK. SudoGhost 11:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Runelight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD. Article has no references that establish notability for the subject; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK SudoGhost 21:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added The Guardian and WorldCat. Noteworthy author. I only created this article as a trial but it has grown. I'm not an expert on book notability so I'll leave it to those who know. Victuallers (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Books are not notable by the author's merit (with the exception of WP:BKCRIT #5), they need to be reliable on their own accord. There are two brief reviews, the rest are not reliable sources that go towards any notability, that's not enough to warrant a standalone article. - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I tried to clean up the article somewhat but something I've noticed in general with Harris's articles is that there is a LOT and I mean a LOT of fancruft, non-NPOV, and OR going on in these articles. I'd go so far as to guess that almost all of the articles concerning her need complete overhauls, so the problem in general with this article is fairly widespread throughout the articles concerning her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks acceptable after the clean up. Good job. Dengero (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are still inadqeuate, the article fails to meet the notability guidelines. How the article "looks" is not relevant. - SudoGhost 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep multiple independent reliable reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as what? There are only two in the article. - SudoGhost 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just added. If you want any to verify let me know, they are all in commercial databases. I didn't even add all that showed up, this book has more reviews than most, could add a bunch more if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a few, they are sorely lacking in depth of any kind. Most of them seem to repeat the back of the book, followed by a brief sentence at the end that gives some sort of analysis.  Those are insufficient for establishing any notability, as pointed at at WP:NBOOK.  It's kind of telling that they aren't reviews when all of these 'reviews' say word-for-word the exact same thing and are a day or two within being the same exact publication date. - SudoGhost 20:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking into it further, every one of them in the ~19 November 2011 date range are word-for-word the same exact press release summary. That isn't a review and doesn't contribute to notability.  The others like this one are publisher-submitted summaries, not reviews.  All books have these, and WP:NBOOK specifically points out that these do not contribute towards the notability of an article. - SudoGhost 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There were two dups now removed (wires will share stories across papers), the rest are all original reviews. I don't see evidence of press releases ie. a note at the bottom that sources it to the publisher or text that can be traced back to the publisher. If you believe there is, please be specific which ones and why so they can checked and removed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also to call these reviews "lacking in depth" is not accurate, some of them are long in depth detailed reviews, some others are shorter but they are dedicated reviews of the book. If anyone wants to read these reviews just let me know or post a request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the sources, none of them establish any notability for the subject. For example, the "Norse code" reference is about the author with a few sentences actually discussing the book.  The "There's a lot of meanness, stupidity and mischief." is a similar situation, about a civic event the author is holding, and mentions the book very briefly.  These are sources about the author, and seem to reinforce the fact that this book is not notable, and should at the very least be redirected to the author's article.  "Books New Norse tale is one Thor the young adults" is a standard synopsis from the publisher, one repeated word-for-word by other sources you provided.  None of these muster any notability for the subject. - SudoGhost 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, notability is established by WP:BK #1: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I've gone ahead and removed some of the "other sources" you had trouble with and kept the strongest plus the 3 or 4 inline sources is 7 or 8 sources total. They are:


 * Liverpool Echo (book review)
 * School Librarian (book review)
 * Manchester Evening News (book review)
 * Daily Post
 * Daily Post (about the book)
 * The Guardian (book review)
 * Daily Express (book review)
 * Monsters and Critics (book review)
 * If you still have trouble with these, list specific complaints and we can discuss further. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't satisfy it, this doesn't either. The sources in your subpage (which are copyright violations and should be removed; anyone can Google the titles and find the same results), are about the author, with a brief mention about the book itself, reinforcing that the notability is the author's, not the book's.  With that in mind, the article does not satisfy the criteria of WP:NBOOK #1.  There are two brief sources which could be said show any notability for actually discussing the book, and that's not sufficient for the book to have a separate article. - SudoGhost 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't Monster and Critics satisfy? Why doesn't the Liberpool satisfy? At least 6 of the sources above are explicit book reviews, the others do go into the book to some various degree that is more than trivial. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there's nothing to extract from that; other than the very last sentence, it's a synopsis, not a review. A single sentence is a trivial thing, not something to base an article off of.  The others are trhe exact same thing. - SudoGhost 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. A synopsis is significant coverage for notability purposes. 2. A synopsis is exactly what we need to source the plot section of the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really not, a synopsis that is copied from the publisher is not sufficient. Otherwise most books would be notable.  That is not the case; an article must be notable because it has recieved attention, not because a brief summary has been given verifying its existance without giving anything other than the publisher's viewpoint on the matter.  An article has a synopsis section, that doesn't mean a synopsis grants an article notability. - SudoGhost 02:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of these 8 sources is "copied from the publisher", what text specifically in the source(s) is copied from the publisher? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That you didn't check despite being told numerous times is concerning. Of the ones currently in the article, two of them currently are word-for-word copies of the publisher's synopsis. - SudoGhost 11:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All the reviews look legit, published under a byline by major outlets.  Also, one of the removed sources, although a blog, is probably notable due to the Norse Mythology expert who interviewed her.  Meets the WP:BASIC.   Th e S te ve   08:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The tricky thing about reviews is that there's nothing that actually states that a one sentence review from a reliable source isn't really usable. There have been countless debates but in the end nothing official has ever really been stated one way or another. Do I necessarily think that every trade review is that in-depth of a source? No, but this is one of those grey areas of RS so until we get an official consensus and have it added to WP:NBOOK, there's not much to be done about it. Until that time comes, the sources in the article show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2012 (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.