Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Bob Speaks


 * 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   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Silent Bob Speaks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The author is very notable, considering the number of references his article has. I am adding a new reference to confirm the notability of this piece of work. TYelliot (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator While Kevin Smith is a notable screenwriter, his books are not automatically notable for that reason. The fifth clause makes room for the works of an author who is "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable," such as "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Kevin Smith, while definitely notable enough for an article himself, is not the kind of person whose every work is notable enough to justify its own article simply by virtue of the fact that it was written by him. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and therefore there should not be a Wikipedia article dedicated to it. Neelix (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep while there do appear to be a number of false positives, the Google News link above seems to demonstrate that the book has received multiple independent RS reviews, thus meeting WP:BK criterion 1 and the GNG to boot. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as an alternative, it can certainly be Merged into Kevin Smith's own article if consensus decides that the coverage is inadequate for its own article. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 October 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.