Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mandibles


 * 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 - retracting my own submission after overwhelming support. (non-admin closure) Slashme (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The Mandibles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD - reason was "This article makes no claim of notability to explain why this is not just a run-of-the-mill book." The article creator has added some reviews, but just the fact that a book has been reviewed in newspapers doesn't make it notable. Slashme (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself had encountered and planned to PROD at first so I supported it instead, still nothing at all from my searches and examinations so I confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister   talk  21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment –The Google News link atop this discussion provides a plethora of sources that demonstrate notability. North America1000 09:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not the article's creator, but there appears to be a critical mass of coverage to support an article. It is also by a notable author with a history of successful novels, at least one of which has been turned into a film.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviews do indeed count towards notability per WP:NBOOK and are even specifically mentioned in criteria one. From what I can see the book was reviewed by NPR, the Washington Post, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Evening Standard, just to name a few. The thing about reviews is tέhat they're not routine. While yes, a notable author will be far more likely to gain reviews, it's still not a guarantee. Nor is it guaranteed that a book from a new or lesser known author from a major or minor publisher will gain a review. Media outlets (even trades) will routinely decline to review work, to the point where I can safely say that they decline far more books than they review. (This does not count outlets that charge for reviews - that's a different thing entirely and those reviews don't count towards notability on Wikipedia.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep – The book passes both WP:BKCRIT #1 and WP:GNG, as per sources presented above. More sources are easily found in this search, which provides additional sources such as and . North America1000 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator: since my nomination, more content has been added and references to multiple independent reviews have surfaced. At the time, it was true that the article made no claim of notability, and that has now changed, so I would be satisfied with a result of keep. --Slashme (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Widely reviewed, but more importantly, reviewed in top global publications, which is a measure of notability. The author herself is well known (see her article) and a frequent interview subject (in major sources like The Guardian and the BBC) on topics including those that appear in this book. MCB (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and Keep, "At the time, it was true that the article made no claim of notability", afd created 19:21, 8 July, by 18:58, 8 July there were 3 reviews(appearing in The Guardian, The Irish Times, and The Financial Times) listed in the references section of the article, so it already met WP:NBOOK, there is now a 4th review that furthers its notableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2016 (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.