Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Book Review


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco Book Review

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only coverage is repackaged press releases. Recently recreated after parent article was deleted for similar lack of coverage. czar 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  czar  22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  czar  22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  czar  22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete some of the worst attempts at "independent" sourcing I've ever seen. I don't find anything, just link-backs from book websites to reviews from this group. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – the references are just samples. under Google News searching for "San Francisco Book Review" there are 214 citations to reviews in the San Francisco Book Review when I looked just now, not insignificant IMHO. Under WP:WEBCRIT it says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." With these multiple citations, I believe this to be the case. If the article is removed, I think it would be worth being a REDIRECT at least since reviews are cited multiple times on Wikipedia itself, perhaps to Media in the San Francisco Bay Area. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No amount of coverage from WebWire or PRNewswire will be sufficient. Can you give some examples of actually independent coverage, not just press releases posted by this group?  Links like this New Republic piece, which is just a trivial mention describing it as "obscure", aren't sufficient either. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added further references in more substantial publications such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I added some references for quotes of San Francisco Book Review reviews by notable publishers such as Cambridge University Press, Macmillan Publishers, and Penguin Random House. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Book blurbs on publishers' websites are not significant coverage. None of the article's sources have show any reliable, secondary source depth of interest in the book review publication itself. czar  02:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an entry for the parent company and a REDIRECT would be more appropriate. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The parent company article was also deleted for lacking significant coverage. czar  01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the sum of its parts is "notable" enough, otherwise see alternative possible REDIRECT above if needed. This may be borderline now, but as time progresses, it could become less borderline. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with czar and power-enwiki, I can't see how this possibly meets GNG and the sources are simply not adequate to form an article from.  M r A urelius R   Talk! 03:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with the above from MrAureliusR. Kolma8 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2020 (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.