Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thirty Four


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thirty Four

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disputed prod. Non-notable book by non-notable author. Does not meet any element of the notability guideline for books. Only non-local/mainstream source is the Daily Mail article but that is a retelling of the story rather than a critique/review of the book which is only mentioned once in passing. Also appears to be the only title in the publishers catalogue which doesn't speak to the notability of either the book or the publisher. Nancy talk  06:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The creator of the article has removed the AfD notice from the article, and moved the article to Article Incubator/Thirty Four, leaving a redirect from Thirty Four. The "article incubator" is somewhat controversial, but even on the most positive view of it, the "incubator" is not intended to be used in this way, leaving a cross-namespace redirect to a copy of the article without notification anywhere of the AfD. I have replaced the redirect with a note of this AfD discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks James. I have moved it back in to mainspace and move protected it for a fortnight. The article has already spent 3 months in the incubator and as you say, the incubator should not be used for gaming the system. Nancy  talk  08:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. In addition to the Daily Mail article, there is also this article from The Guardian which is written by Burke himself about his book, so is not independent coverage but The Guardian asking Burke to write an article about the book should carry some weight. The Wandsworth Guardian is again an interview so technically not wholly independent. I also found this from Israel National News, which looks like a reliable source. Not totally convincing but I would give it the benefit of the doubt.--Michig (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Guardian & Wandsworth pieces, WP:BK specifically excludes works "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". Additionally neither the Mail nor the Israeli piece (both used as sources in the article) are reviews of the book, rather they are about the story, the book gets no more than a single casual mention in each. Nancy  talk  12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete To begin with I was unsure about this, which is why I did not say either "delete" or "keep" above. However, a careful look at the sources given supports Nancy's view: there is no evidence of significant coverage of the book, as opposed to coverage of matters which are also covered in the book. Also, in answer to Michig's points, it is important to distinguish between use of a source to confirm facts and use of a source to establish notability. Certainly The Guardian is a reliable source, and therefore would be acceptable for confirming facts if it actually mentioned significant facts about the book. However, no matter how reliable a source is, if it is not independent of the subject it is of no value in establishing notability. Of course, this is of limited relevance in this case since, as already said, both sources given by Michig make only brief passing mention of the book. Thus they do not give evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I have not been able to find significant coverage of this book in independent, reliable sources. Per James, using sources that are not independent of the subject to establish notability is contrary to WP:NRVE. If there are no objective, neutral sources, we cannot write an objective, neutral article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:12, 19 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.