Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful Strangers (book)

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. --BDD (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Strangers (book)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been prodded, twice, but anon IP has a tendency to remove the tag. Unnotable book, - i.e. no professional reviews, by Glenna Maynard, who's also up for AFD for being unnotable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (as the person who PROD'ed it). Non-notable author's non-notable first book from minor publisher, with zero sources available: a very long way short of WP:NBOOK. The only text in the article apart from the lead sentence was a WP:COPYVIO reproduction of what appears to be the book's back-cover blurb, which I have now removed three times and counting. Likewise, the image appears to be WP:COPYVIO, despite the claim of the poster that it their own work. For bonus marks, an IP editor of the page left an edit summary saying they'd been asked to edit the page by the book's author. Page creator and an IP editor have removed deletion tags more than once. Dricherby (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the page creator states on his talk page that the book is self-published. Possible WP:COI there, too, and I suspect the page's IP editor is the page creator. Dricherby (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reviews

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17279449-beautiful-strangers

http://glennamaynard.blogspot.com/?zx=1f53a864da1ef8af

http://maggiethom.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/beautiful-strangers-by-author-glenna-maynard-brand-new-release/

http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Strangers-Masquerade-Series-Volume/product-reviews/1484076338/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/175-9113506-7031429?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

http://romanceaddiction.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/review-of-beautiful-strangers-by-glenna-maynard/

http://stickgirlbookreviews.blogspot.com/2013/03/beautiful-strangers-cover-reveal-by.html?zx=7906b58c964335c5

Here is a photo of the physical book: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=495568697157703&set=a.459385880775985.93162.458646394183267&type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshaunsweeney (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We accept that the book exists but people's blogs and customer reviews on Amazon aren't classed as reliable sources by Wikipedia. To establish that this book is notable and therefore should have a page on Wikipedia, you need to show that it meets the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Dricherby (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If this page is deleted, please also delete Beautiful Strangers (disambiguation) under WP:G6 (disambiguation page which will have only one link if this page goes). Dricherby (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Struck Dricherby (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion of the disambiguation page won't be necessary. I renamed it to "beautiful stranger" singular and found quite a few mentions of various different things with the title, all of which have links to things or people that currently have articles on Wikipedia. One or two of the articles are a little squidgy notability-wise, but there would still be just enough to warrant keeping the disambiguation page after/if this book's article gets deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And I added a couple of redirects for alternative capitalizations. Dricherby (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of that- I didn't even think about alternate capitalizations and get tripped up by that all the time! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I have submitted I have right to use and permission of the author. Furthermore that is the same pic that is on all the pages for review. I guess if this doesn't doesn't count as a book from an author then you should delete every book and every author on Wikipedia because none of them started off famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshaunsweeney (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PERMISSIONS for the procedure for posting copyrighted material with the permission of the copyright holder. As for the article itself, the question is not whether the book really exists. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable to have an article about it in Wikipedia. Notability on Wikipedia comes from having significant coverage in reliable, independent sources: the guidelines are here. If a subject does not have that, it is impossible to write an objective article. As far as I can see, this book does not yet have any coverage at all in reliable, independent sources. If it acquires such coverage later on, the article can be re-created then. This is why other authors and other books do have articles about them on Wikipedia: with time, they became notable. Dricherby (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any criteria of WP:NBOOK. Keri (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utterly failing WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons above. The thing is, while many of us appreciate how insanely hard it is for self-published authors to gain coverage in reliable sources, that a book is self-published doesn't mean that it gets to skate over notability guidelines because of it. It's usually unlikely that a self-published book will get coverage, but it can happen. I always like to hold up Wool as one of the best examples of a self-published series that gained notability. In any case, that the book exists and/or is popular has little bearing on whether or not the book should be kept. A book can be popular but still never pass notability guidelines. For example, we have had books that have hit the NYT bestseller lists in some format, yet they still don't pass notability guidelines because that feat didn't give them any substantial coverage. I can say right here that getting upset over this fact won't change anything. If notability guidelines won't change for a NYT bestseller, it won't change for a self-published book. It's frustrating sometimes because there are books with big followings that never gain coverage in RS that I'd love to add, but these are guidelines that have grown and adapted over time out of necessity. Complaining here or demanding that we remove every book ever written won't change a darn thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.