Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherlock Bones, Tracer of Missing Pets


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 01:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Bones, Tracer of Missing Pets

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This has been tagged for notability for two years. It's a book from an author on which we do not have an article (link is to a dab page, and the only entry on the author is to this book).

The links on google, other than the author site (I think), are as far as I can see just listings to purchase the book. I don't see any independent reviews. Shadowjams (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There appears to be a reference here (which may be a review or recommendation), but no preview is provided. This WorldCat search says that 566 libraries have a copy of the book. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Elementary school library collection: a guide to books and other media..." Looks like a directory, but it's hard to know without the preview. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * nope,its a selected list, not a directory liker Books in Print.   DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources as required by the general notability criteria or anything to verify that the book meets any of the specific criteria set out in Notability (books). The book mentioned is over 1000 pages long and a new edition came out every year it was published, without evidence of what it contains, a review, a plot summary or a simple listing the article cannot be expanded beyond a simple plot summary. Guest9999 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are two LA Times articles about the book (one during it's writing and one after, I believe), but they're behind a paywall so I can't tell for sure if they meet the "non-trivial" requirement of WP:BK. It appears he's local to that area and there's no review by any other major source, so I'm calling it a lack of significant coverage per Joe Chill. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (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.