Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete New Zealand Music Charts, 1966-2006 : singles, albums, DVDs, compilations compiled by Dean Scapolo


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__

The Complete New Zealand Music Charts, 1966-2006 : singles, albums, DVDs, compilations compiled by Dean Scapolo

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I could find no evidence that this is a notable book (or author). Fram (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music,  and New Zealand. Fram (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing to suggest that this is a notable work. It's apparently self-published, as the article itself suggests; Maurienne House has published a total of five books since 2007. One passing mention ("books recently published") on JSTOR, 6 citations according to Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete The only hit I get is a listing from the National Library of ZN, for copyright I suppose. I can't find critical reviews (nor any listing of any kind) for this book. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability thresholds are not met, including the WP:NBOOK criteria. The book is valid as a reference source (this Audioculture article references the book and Scapolo's research, and uses it to compile a list of New Zealand's record charts in the 1960s, suggesting that it is a good source), but it doesn't meet the threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article. The article creator's recent comment on the talk page suggests they may have thought they needed to create the page in order to cite it as a source, which is not the case (I've tried to clarify, hopefully clearly!). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just spotted that the article creator has left comment on the talk page for this deletion discussion. He has linked to the Goodreads and bookstore pages for the book, which don't help in establishing notability. Again, this is not to say that the book isn't a useful source in its area, but simply that it doesn't meet the high notability threshold for an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2023 (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.