Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blood Confession


 * 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. After the first relisting, the !votes were one merge and one delete. After the second relisting, there was a comment discussing the notability of the topic per reviews that have been written about the topic, one keep !vote and one delete !vote. After the third relisting, there was one weak keep and three keep !votes. Firstly, I'm aware that AfD closures are not based upon !vote counts, but in this case the consensus was to keep, because the keep arguments were stronger than the delete arguments. The first delete !vote is based upon the notion that reviews are not a measure of notability, particularly when there are only three, which appears to have been countered in the comment that followed it, which stated in part that reviews are functional toward topic notability when from reliable sources. The second delete !voter states that sources should be from "major sources" to qualify, such as "a major metropolitan daily", and that the reviews available are insufficient. However, WP:GNG and Notability (books) do not have this requirement. The last four !votes delineate that the topic has enough sources and enough reviews to meet WP:GNG. User:DGG initially !voted to merge, and then later !voted to keep: the keep !vote is being taken into consideration in this instance, because it was the latter of the two !votes. Lastly, WP:BOOK as cited in the nomination as a qualifier for deletion actually links to WikiProject Books, and there is no project guideline on that page regarding book notability. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 10:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Blood Confession

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Only one review does not meet WP:BOOK requirements for notability. The small number of libraries listing it is no indication of notability. The notability for book requirements simply state that any title with no or next to no library copies is automatically not notable barring some amazing coincidence. Based upon total lack of reliable sources it's clear it is not notable enough to have an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Merge to an article about the author I see three reviews, which by our accepted standard is notability, and the book is in    348 libraries according to WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n2005-78259], making it   mildly notable, though not famous.  (dream Guy, "next to no copies" in this genre is numbers under 100; there's usually a match between reviews and library holdings, because public and school libraries buy primarily on the basis of the reviews in the review sources listed.)  However, Libby has written a later book The king's rose  which is considerably more important, with 578 holding libraries. Though we could therefore write an article on each, one on the author  would seem the better choice here, and I will repurpose this article to that, if it is kept, using it as a basis and a redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * delete as non-notable. Reviews are not a measure of notability, certainly not only 3 reviews. Really, every book gets reviewed somewhere. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: Actually, reviews are a measure of notability when they're done by sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. The first part of WP:NBOOK states "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Whether or not there's enough sources here to warrant keeping the article is another question, though. I had a bit of trouble deciding after I'd added all of the sources, which is why I haven't voted one way or another. But yes, reviews are a sign of notability as long as they're by reliable sources. There's a huge difference between reviews done by someone on Goodreads and someone who reviews for say, Strange Horizons or the School Library Journal. Saying that reviews can never show notability because everyone writes reviews is like saying that newspaper articles can never show notability because everyone somewhere has written an article in some format.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient reviews for notability. Reviews are the substantial sources that make a book notable. What else could one expect to be written about a book?  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't find anything significant about this book from any major source. The article cites a few reviews (although one of them is actually a review of another book by the same author, which mentions this one in passing). But they are not from anything we would consider a major source, such as a major metropolitan daily. Granted, such sources may not often take note of "young adult fiction" like this, but that just means that the book isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Google News found that review of the second novel (twice) and otherwise just a note about a local book signing. The other sources at the article are from I'll-review-anything blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm undoing my "delete" "no consensus" closure and relisting this discussion following a comment on my talk page.  Sandstein   21:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems to have just-enough suitable coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough reviews to meet GNG are currently present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – This book has an adequate number of reviews and it is held in 348 Worldcat libraries as noted by DGG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see that DGG has voted "Merge" and "keep". I wanted to strike out DGG's "merge" vote, but I can't yet, unless there's no problem. Anyway, there are reviews and a plot that could make this topic notable. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 14 June 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.