Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Logic of Half a Moustache


 * 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. The first book is borderline, but this one clearly fails WP:BK as pointed out. Debatable how notable the author is? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Logic of Half a Moustache

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Notability (books). Author is not notable. WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create it if it sells enough. Triwbe (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Oppose I think there is a misunderstanding. The book is currently a Waterstone's bestseller in Bradford and has received 2 newspaper reviews, one of which is referenced. See Khan's article for notability of the author. Just because I've only just started writing the article, and it's not finished yet, that's not a reason for deletion. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Make that: both articles fully referenced. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both the book and its author don't seem to meet the respective notability guidelines (WP:BK, WP:AUTH). The above review by Mahmud Khan's hometown newspaper is insufficient. Where exactly is the other review? — Rankiri (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The linked review is the only ONLINE link available. There are print reviews which can be referenced but obviously not linked.--Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be Internet links, see Citing sources. But I think any modern day biography should have some Internet coverage, preferably at a national level. Normally notability should be at a national or international level. Whether regional sources are sufficient, I do not know and we must let the community decide. --Triwbe (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A short notice in your hometown newspaper of a print-on-demand book doesn't seem sufficient to me. I think the Mahmud Khan article should probably get deleted as well; I'm not at all certain that the first book, in Urdu, wasn't self-published. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is currently a Waterstone's Bradford bestseller, which is highly notable. I can't find you a link for that, but it is. Notability shouldn't just be based on whether I can provide a link. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Over 2000 Google results on the title. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, not on arbitrary sales figures. Also, please see WP:GHITS, WP:INHERITED and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. — Rankiri (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further sources added, see photo from Waterstones. Note I think I have verifiability licked here, so sources aren't really the issue - I'm just trying to demonstrate the notability of the book for Wikipedia. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this falls under the Self Published Source criteria. I can easily have a picture of myself taken in a local bookshop and have it published on the Internet. Infact I know a writer who did that, even did a book signing session in his local bookshop, but the book was also self-published and neither him nor his book were notable. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Please see WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH to be clear on what we mean. --Triwbe (talk) 13:00, 14 April 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.