Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Christmas Pickle Tradition


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Christmas Pickle Tradition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published Christmas storybook, fails WP:NBOOK with no secondary sources other than blogger reviews. The Illumination Book Awards does not appear to be a "major literary award" that would pass NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article uses two secondary sources, in addition to the blog sources. Their is an article from the New Times Broward-Palm Beach as well as Main Line Parent. Wick01778 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Wick01778 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. The issue here is that the award isn't particularly noteworthy. It's a minor award and not the type that would really be considered to give notability as a whole on Wikipedia. Don't take this badly- most awards don't give notability on Wikipedia and I always like to say that less than 2-5% of any award ever given to anyone (which includes sports, literature, politics, etc) would count towards notability and of that percentage, less than 1% would be the type that would merit a keep on that basis alone. It doesn't help that 2014 appears to be the first time the award was given out (meaning that this has only been ongoing for 2 years) and that there is little to no coverage of the award itself in the media. The only people that appear to be talking about the award are the award winners, their publicists and publishers, and non-usable blog sources and we'd need quite a bit of coverage to show that the award is particularly noteworthy even to give partial notability. Of the sources on the article, only this source would be remotely usable as far as reliable sources go. This source is WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it cannot give notability and this one reads like it was taken very heavily from a press release. It also doesn't help that it was not written by a staff member and that people can submit things to be sponsored or otherwise marketed on their site. This is a blog entry and even if the blog is popular, that does not automatically mean that the blog would be one of the rare exceptions to the WP:SPS rule. This is also a blog entry and falls under the same guideline. Most self-published sources (in this case blogs) will not be usable for notability purposes because they undergo little to no editing and it's hard to tell how transparent they are in their review process. Most review blogs are fairly honest in my experience, but that still does not make them a reliable source per Wikipedia's RS guidelines, which are very strict. Now even if we were to count the MainLine Parent source as reliable, that's only two sources and it doesn't really give a very in-depth coverage of the book as a whole. This book just doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an entry at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft:The Christmas Pickle Tradition. I agree with Tokyogirl79's analysis that the book doesn't yet meet Notability. Only one articleWebCite from the New Times Broward-Palm Beach provides significant coverage of the subject. The book was published in October 2014; there may be reviews about it in the future. To preserve this editor's hard work, I support moving to the draft namespace where the editor can work on it if/when new sources surfaces. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility, but I'm slightly worried that it'd never pass notability guidelines and that it'd just sit in the draftspace until it gets deleted months later as a G13 candidate. The thing about books is that if they don't get the coverage the first time out of the gate, the odds of them getting the coverage later on down the line shrink dramatically to the point where it's in the "struck twice by lightening in the same spot" type of odds range. Basically, I'm just worried that transferring it to draftspace would just be delaying the inevitable, not to mention that some AfC members tend to have a strong tendency to approve articles that fail notability guidelines pretty spectacularly. I'd much prefer that this be deleted and if the book gains more coverage, that they go through deletion review with the new sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any harm in moving the article to draftspace in the event that sources do surface. The benefit is that the creator's hard work is not erased so can be reused. It is possible that The Christmas Pickle Tradition might receive more coverage around Christmas 2015, so I don't think it's a lost cause that it will never pass the notability guidelines. If no sources surface by January 2016, speedy deleting the draft under G13 will take very little time. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Although the Broward Palm Beach source is reliable, it is not enough on its own to pass WP:NBOOK. The Illumination Book Award seems to have just been started in 2013, and so does not confer notability. Google didn't turn up any more reliable sources. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this book.  Everymorning   talk  00:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Everymorning: this book does not yet meet WP:NBOOK. Shanata (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (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.