Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Kill The Potemkin (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Per comments on the nom's talk page, I would like to add that I would have changed my !vote to "keep" had the discussion not been closed so soon. Although not very, I'm convinced that this book is notable, although it irks me that the author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To Kill The Potemkin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BK. Previous AfD suggested sources but none have been added in six months and there is little indication from the sources indicated that the book meets the notability criteria. Please note the notability requirements for books before voting keep based on the existence of reviews. Reviews are insufficient alone to guarantee notability. Protonk (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If the author is a red link, that's usually a red flag. I can't find anything outside a couple of trivial reviews; as the nom states, minor reviews alone do not a notable book make. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep given the extensive reviews (NY Times etc) the information is neutral and verifiable - and since wikipedia has no space shortage what more do you need? If you want more then the fact that it made the |NYT bestseller list] in 1987 tells you that it isn't just someone's backstore vanity. How does wikipedia benefit by removing this?--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you get a different link, that one resolves to a blank page for me. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Try this,. It was reviewed in the Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post amongst others. It also appears to have been 15th in the NYT best seller list. That tells me we can write neutrally and verifiably about it. Nothing else really matters.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I added references for 3 reviews I found. RayAYang (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews alone aren't enough for notability. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep A red link may be a red flag that we need an article. And its been usually argued that the author of only one notable book is not necessarily notable. Three substantial reviews show notability. National newspapers review selectively. Sure, a review by a hometown newspaper doesn't show anything,because they are nn-selective. But the NYT is not. It less than 5%. Anyway, if it made the bestseller list is is indisputably notable--If notability means something real. If it just means sources, 2 substantial published items are enough, reviews or not. DGG (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn I'm happy to withdraw this. Hopefully the content of those reviews doesn't languish and the article gets improved by the inclusion of critical commentary.  I'll not that even though AfD is not a tool for article improvement, it does seem to get the job done rather efficiently.  BTW, what put me over the edge was the author of the LA times review.  Take a look. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (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.