Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a Jewish Mother


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Secrets of a Jewish Mother

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fairly self-explantatory. Unfortunately neither A7 or A9 apply for books, so it will have to be listed here instead. No claims of notability and no references. Non-notable book by all appearances. Jay Σεβαστός discuss  23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator should try following the simple procedures described at WP:BEFORE. This book may not be great literature, but it is notable, as shown by the coverage in a variety of reliable sources: Boston Globe, Bloomberg Businessweek, MSNBC, Newsday, The New York Times, J weekly, Fox News, WNTH, Buffalo News, Danbury News Times and on and on and on.
 * WP:BEFORE is not policy, or even a guideline; at best, it is a suggestion. No one is under any obligation to pay it the slightest bit of attention if they choose not to. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, WP:BEFORE is more than just a "suggestion" because it is a tool for implementing an important policy. Deletion policy is most certainly policy, and it says "Reasons for deletion include . . . Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".  It goes on to say, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion".  If an AfD nominator describes in a few words, their attempts to find reliable sources and the result of that search, that starts the debate off on the right foot, in my opinion.Cullen328 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Point for clarity, in WP:DELETE "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is one criteria, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" is a separate one. So I would read DELETE to not require an extensive source search if there is no clear assertion of notability in the article, merely a good faith belief that the article is not notable. Monty 845 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The coverage is trivial, consisting of mostly 1-2 sentence name-drops in articles about the "Real Housewives..." tv show. You can't just bean-count the number of times it is simply mentioned and call that "reliably sourced".  WP:NBOOK has specific criteria, none of which are met by this book. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Buffalo News coverage is much deeper coverage than a "1-2 sentence name drop". There are far more Google News hits, and other detailed reviews may well be available.  I don't like this kind of book, but it appears notable.Cullen328 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, the book is talked about a lot and even reviewed. There's enough coverage for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rescue per sources found, which I have added to the stub. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With 9 inline citations, I removed the two stub templates, and added talk page templates rating the article as start, not stub. Plenty of discussion of this book in the media, so there is no reason to question the notability. WP:NBOOK says The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. Enough said. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read through the summaries that appear.  They talk about the book in plenty of places.   D r e a m Focus  08:07, 1 April 2011 (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.