Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boopity Boop! Writes Her First Poem

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 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) with the explanation: "Mass removal of pages added by PeterRoyce: More copyvios". (NAC Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boopity Boop! Writes Her First Poem

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

Fails WP:BK, Just published book with few google hits to establish notability. Single independent source in article is not in English and only mentions the book in passing as part of an interview with the author. noq (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia writes articles on relevant, authentic projects, companies, etc, foreign or otherwise, varying in dates. I notice some projects on Wikipedia are dated for 2010, so I do not see the date as a problem here. Book is notable and wikipedia should support a confluence of information varying in its importance since the site is a community site relevant to many people. People who search the book should find Wikipedia among its articles since it is a real, published book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) October 1, 2010

Comment You assert it is notable but do not show it. The reference you linked to only mentions the book in passing - this is not significant coverage. The book does not even appear to have actually been published yet. noq (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:BK. No reliable sources, no Amazon sales rank, publisher is either a vanity press or extremely small (their authors page asks "Do you have a dream of being published?" and their store page lists all of 3 items including this one). Not a notable book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masiela Lusha (author's article). No notability for the book itself (Worldcat lists it as being in only one library's holdings, which says something about its lack of notability), but someone searching for it should be directed to the author's page where it is mentioned. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment; this is not even a just-published book. According to its website, it is not due for publication until November 2010. An article on a not-yet-published book, in the absence of substantial extenuating circumstances not present here (for example, the next highly-anticipated book in a highly notable series of books), cannot be justified on notability. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity wikipedia (a community site) should be this selective about what truthful information is revealed to the community. Here is another link. However it's your call. Not worth arguing about. http://www.borders.com/online/store/EventView?city&state&zipCode&within&all_stores&selectedStoreId=10696&eventId=351430& —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough that something be true. It must also be notable. I had lasagna for dinner tonight, but you don't see me writing an article about that. You've made no argument about notability, and that is the point of this discussion. TJRC (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Masiela Lusha, as there are no reliable sources to indicate, that this book is notable, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If hundreds of thousands of people around the world wanted to know if you ate lasagna for dinner, I would presume wikipedia would create an article for you informing the public with information they wanted to know ie eating lasagna. Book is relevant and notable because it is inherently tied to a notable actress and book is relevant because it is translated in more than one language. Also, baby Suri Cruise has an article on wikipedia. Please enlighten me, what did she do besides being born to Tom and Kate Cruise? Same with this book. Inherently notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guidelines that say that books inherit notability from the author? And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. noq (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explain WHY suri curise is on wikipedia if she isn't INHERENTLY notable?? then remove EVERYONE who does not stand legitimate in their own right.

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS noq (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note also that Suri Cruise is a redirect to another article - not an article in its own right. noq (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadads (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe weighing the level of notability applies here. As a celebrity, who ever that person marries, gives birth to, creates, dates, writes, publishes is considered notable... inherently so. Otherwise, thousands of articles on wiki should not even exist. To weigh a book as to whether it is relevant should only apply if the writer is just as new as the book, and the book carries the writer's worth and therefore should be weighed in relevance. But when the writer is a celebrity, whatever that celebrity creates for the public, (movie, books, children, dates) are relevant. I can give you an entire list of people, books, and children who shouldn't even be up there if it weren't for the notability of someone else. Please consider this. Thank you. PeterRoyce (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot believe sadads would even suggest simply deleting a legitimate fact. At least the redirect was more logical if it in fact does not weigh any significance WHATSOEVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that it applies in this particular case, now that this debate has been bypassed by HJ Mitchell mass deleting PeterRoyce's contributions, but notability is not inherited... see WP:ITSA for guidelines. Oh, and Delete Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2010 (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.