Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gay Travel Guide for Tops and Bottoms


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Gay Travel Guide for Tops and Bottoms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not see anything here that indicate notability. It seems to be in almost no libraries, though I recognize its a book that many libraries would not collect.  DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mild Delete On the one hand it looks like a Wikipedia page could be a way to advertise the book.  On the other hand, the page itself is harmless.  We have a lot of server space.  This isn't presenting disinformation, and it's not likely that the page will abuse anybody or anything.  The concern is that there are no reviews of the book or commentary on the book by reliable sources.  The article at this point cannot be more than a simple assertion that "this book exists and here's what the cover looks like".  By our rules, an article that cannot be more than a mere stub should be deleted.  If some third party reviews come to light, I would switch my vote. Jehochman Talk 13:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've found some other articles about the book, but I was unable to find any reviews that were in sources I could say is completely reliable. I've added six sources to the article, one of which was previously down in the EL section. Three of them talk about the book's release and run a very thin line between trivial and in-depth depending on how you want to see this. The other three talk about Linkedin dropping the book's ad from their site. This is sort of inbetween as far as I'm concerned and notability or the lack thereof could be argued in either direction. It's not enough for me to give a resounding keep, but it's enough to where I wouldn't argue if it's kept. However, we shouldn't keep things because it wouldn't do any harm. We have to establish that it's notable first. Server space isn't really the issue here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there aren't reviews, third party commentary would also be useful. For instance, if there is news about LinkedIn ditching ads for the book, that might contribute to notability. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Promotional piece. Carrite (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was easily able to find two (2) more sources not yet included in the article, including one in Portuguese language, indicating this topic has generated some secondary source coverage interest in multiple languages:
 * Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Commercial/promotional. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The book has notability because Linkedin pulling ads about the book is truly noteworthy. If you look at the wiki-contributors who have gone in and edited this article, they have removed enough elements to make the article not sound like a promotional piece and review on it’s merits. The Wiki-LGBT community has listed the book in their sub-catagories “of interest to the LGBT community on several fronts”Tews 7:40, 11 April,2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- With all the editing changes (including adding more noteworthy references) done by Cirt and Tokyogirl, the article meets the qualifications to remain on Wikipedia. Not all books are library worthy, so I would feel that it would be biased to base a book only on the merits if libraries buy it. I don't think that was the intent of the publisher to place this type of book in libraries. LGBT Censorship is noteworthy and this book is a perfect example of it and Linkedin story has given merit to LGBT sensorship and this book being a prime example of it. Therefore this article should remain on wikipedia.Desaderal 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional and not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin A number of reliable sources have been added to the article since it was nommed. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2013 (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.