Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reader's Circle

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Jujutacular talk 11:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's Circle

edit
Reader's Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep. The two sources I've already cited are both independent and reliable. I can easily include additional secondary sources, but I didn't want to litter the article with newspaper references that I didn't feel added anything. As far as other web-based indicators that you might reconsider the organization, the site does have a Google pagerank of 7, the same as Meetup.com. Normanrobert (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Norman. I agree that one of the references is from a reliable and independent sources (what appear as #2 right now). If you want to help save this article, I suggest finding a few more reliable and independent references that show significant coverage. It will be very helpful if the articles you find are viewable online for verification. As it stands, people will be weary as they won't be able to easily verify your references. As far as its Google search pagerank, Wikipedia doesn't use that information to establish notability at all. Without getting into a lengthy explanation, it's difficult to determine what number of hits is good enough or how high up the list a subject should be to establish notability. In my opinion, if you want to put this discussion to sleep, find 2 or 3 news articles from major news outlets, add those articles as references with links to them online. OlYellerTalktome 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - There are currently 3 references listed on the article. The first is published by an organization that aims at creating more Reading Circles. I can see how it could be argued that the creation of this website shows a need that proves notability but I'm not going to make that argument. References number 2 is a chapter about Reader's Circles in what I consider to be a reliable and independent sources making this reliable, significant, and independent coverage. Reference #3 is an article from the WSJ that I found and will add a link for in the article. It doesn't mention Reader's Circle by name a single time so in my opinion, it does not help establish notability. Regardless, a Google News Archive search shows several hits for such organizations all over the US, alone. The work needs done but I believe that the subject is notable. OlYellerTalktome 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It appears that many of the results refer to the term "reader's circle" in the dictionary definition sense and not the "Reader's Circle" (in capital) website that is the subject of this article. --Kinu t/c 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Kinu, what is the "dictionary definition" of a "reader's circle"? As I show below, the term is an internationally registered trademark of Reader's Circle, Inc., and while I don't know how familiar you are with trademark law, one cannot register mere words out of the dictionary. "Book clubs" or "book group" could not be registered, for example. I would very seriously encourage you to look into this issue; I do not believe you have accurate information at all. In any case, if you do, you can certainly provide the "dictionary definition" of a "reader's circle" and the appropriate references. Normanrobert (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OlYeller, Thanks for helping me understand better how this works. The reason I included the WSJ article was that I felt it showed independence and it showed that the site had drawn attention, however minimal, fully 6 years ago. In any case, I added a dozen new references and I'm sure I can turn up still more if needed. Regards, Normanrobert (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As indicated above, much of the citations are to reader's circles in terms of the "book club" definition of the term and not this particular website; results from Google News are similarly generic and do not refer to the subject of this article. The only references that seems to mention this website by name are (1) the WSJ article, but that again is a glossing mention in an article about the subject of reading circles in general and not in-depth coverage, and (2) the Spirit of Service book, but based on an Amazon "look inside" it is mentioned once, on page 10, and is again not in-depth coverage. If anything, this article is more about the term (which could redirect to book discussion club, possibly) and the mention of the website that is ostensibly the subject of the first paragraph of the article seems unjustified, as it does not seem to meet WP:GNG and there is no sourced evidence that the genericized term "reader's circle" is a direct result of the efforts of this particular website. --Kinu t/c 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on a deeper look, the Spirit of Service book does not seem to mention this website at all; the direct quote is "Knowledge is power, and a neighborhood World News Reader's Circle is a way to empower a small group by combining the interests of the individuals." It appears that this is about the generic concept of a reading group, but does not convey notability to the website that is the subject of this article. --Kinu t/c 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy discussion between editors regarding the references in the article
    • Hi Kinu, Actually it appears you missed it. The reference to the site is in the 3rd paragraph. Other websites mentioned on the page include the BBC, CNN, and the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanrobert (talk • contribs) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, but that paragraph says: "Go to www.readerscircle.org, an Internet resource that helps people organize and sustain reader's circles. The site has a wealth of information; you can also post a listing on the site to attract potential members and connect with authors who will speak with your group by phone." That's it... no actual in depth coverage about the site, just a brief directory-style mention of what it is, among scores of similar entries in the book. Being merely mentioned one in a 400-page book without any actual commentary about it doesn't make the coverage significant. --Kinu t/c 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're applying a false criteria for in-depth. The book grants only a single page to any focus organization, and the whole page is devoted to Reader's Circle because the whole page elaborates a particular kind of Reader's Circle, a World News Reader's Circle. That is in-depth coverage in a book covering some 365 ideas for service. However, if you look at the Spirit of Service Focus Organizations page I added to the external links, it's a who's who of the non-profit world. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an organization listed that does not have a Wikipedia article. So in fact, yes, it is in-depth, and the organization's very inclusion points up an information gap in your encyclopedia. Normanrobert (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: your comment, "there is no sourced evidence that the genericized term "reader's circle" is a direct result of the efforts of this particular website," you could test that assumption by doing actual queries on the Reader's Circle site. I am sure you would find that the many of the "book clubs" listed have listings on the site. Separately, it appears you may not have seen my new references. A number of them refer to their group as a "Reader's Circle book club", which I would argue does prove the term is linked to the organization. Normanrobert (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide a third party reference (i.e., not from the Reader's Circle website) which establishes that the use of the term in reference to other book clubs is a genericized trademark-type result of this "Reader's Circle" organization? Otherwise, this merely shows that these groups are a part of this organization, which doesn't establish notability; after all, the size of a group does not convey notability, but actual information that's been written about the group. --Kinu t/c 23:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here, I'll even do the leg work and make it simple for you. This is a "book club" calling itself a "reader's circle" in Hoboken, NJ: The Reader's Circle. And here's is the same "book club" with a listing on the Reader's Circle website: Listing on RC. Now, if you want, I can do that probably for any examples you'd like. If you take the time to cite them, I'll take the time to verify them. Normanrobert (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point. Your example shows that this book club exists and is a member of the Reader's Circle website. It is a primary source (and one on which requests for meetups, etc., can be posted by anyone wishing to do so), it does nothing to help show that either the Reader's Circle website or this particular club is notable, and it does not provide sourced evidence for the assumption that every group that calls itself a "reader's circle" is necessarily related to this website (indeed, many of the groups on the website aren't called that) or that this term is inextricably related to the website outside of having the same name (after all, there is a major publisher that uses the term for its forum). In order to show the Reader's Circle website is notable, we must have significant third party coverage from reliable sources about it. Scores of external links about other clubs that happen to be "child" groups or whathaveyou do not convey this notability. --Kinu t/c 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of fact, your Random House example is on point because Random House used to call its line of books just Reader's Circle - you can verify this with a Google image search - until a trademark dispute arose between the two companies. Random House ceded and changed their mark to "Random House Reader's Circle," which is the name on the site you linked to, not "Reader's Circle." (And you can be certain that if Random House had a valid prior claim, they would not have changed their brand.) Normanrobert (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're asking for a newspaper article declaring that Reader's Circle is to book clubs as Kleenex is to tissue paper, I don't know that such an article has ever been written for any brand outside of a marketing textbook. However, regarding a genericized trademark, I can establish one half the link. Reader's Circle is a registered trademark: serial number 78152108, registration number 2905342. (If you enter either number, be sure to select the right search criteria from the drop down box. It initially searches only words, though you can search reader's circle and bring up the trademark just as easily.) I hope you'll take the time to look it up at USPTO.gov. Now, I agree that the question is not how many groups use the term; but if a majority of "book clubs" calling themselves "reader's circles" are traceable to Reader's Circle itself, I think your genericized trademark is established. Normanrobert (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. I accidentally copied the wrong serial and registration number at first. They're correct now, and the USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) certifies that the term "reader's circle" is an IC (International Class) registered trademark of Reader's Circle, Inc., the non-profit in question. It also shows that the mark was filed as far back as August, 2002. Normanrobert (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being the holder of a trademark is not an indicator of notability. Having significant coverage in third party sources is. I think I've mentioned this enough times to where I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point; if you wish to take my advice and find actual sources showing how this subject meets WP:GNG, you are more than welcome to, but the choice is yours. At this time, however, I feel my recommendation to delete is justified. --Kinu t/c 06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For your insistence on more sources, you seem not to have remarked my article from the Los Angeles Times. In fact, a version of it was distributed through the Associated Press and ran in some form in scores of newspapers across the country. I can start assembling a list if you would like. For the rest of your argument, its very logic proves the notability of the organization. You ask if there is a genericized trademark and make the argument that the term "reader's circle" is being used merely to mean "book club", when in fact the term has no meaning - you haven't produced the "dictionary definition" you promised - and you thereby prove in taking it to mean "book club" that it has become a genericized trademark. To review trademark law, terms have 4 levels of status. They can be "generic," like "book clubs", and such terms are not available for trademark. They can be "descriptive," and such terms have a weak level of protection. They can be "inherently distinctive", as with "reader's circle", and have a strong level of protection. And they can be "arbitrary", as with KODAK, and have an absolute claim to protection. You may not recognize that you have proven "reader's circle" has become a genericized trademark, but the whole logic of your argument assumes it to be the case, and the fact that it was granted trademark status at all is a second proof that it is not a mere "generic" term; the USPTO review team has dictionaries too. But again, if you would like to dispute the point, you need merely produce said "dictionary definition" of "reader's circle." To recap, with the A.P. article, the organization has appeared in dozens upon dozens of newspapers across the U.S., and its trademark has in fact become a genericized term for book clubs. Neither of your points stand scrutiny. Normanrobert (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also feel it's necessary to point out that it's pretty clear Wikipedia's "standards" are not at all being evenly enforced here. The Great Books Foundation article cites not one source. Reader's Circle, a name that you can find on the cover of 50 books in every single fiction section of every single bookstore in the country - used by Random House and then retracted on account of Reader's Circle, Inc. - merits inclusion if for no other reason than to clear up the ambiguity of the name (though I believe it merits inclusion on other grounds as well, and I believe the articles and book I cited show that). In any case, it's evident you apply one standard to an organization you know and another standard to an organization that you don't know. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be a club. Normanrobert (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. With all due respect, none of that establishes notability either. The Great Books Foundation article? The article includes a list of external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations, or footnotes. The external links, while not formatted as footnotes, establish the notability of the Foundation. Other stuff exists. Wikipedia has over 3.5 million articles. We're not focusing on all those other articles right now. We're only addressing Reader's Circle. The bottom line comes down to this: The subject of the article lacks notability as established through significant coverage about the organization, presented in reliable sources that are completely independent of the organization, separate from any ties or member organizations of Reader's Circle. While holding a trademark for the term "Reader's Circle" may be advantageous to the holder, it means little in establishing notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. From a business perspective, separate from Wikipedia, holding a trademark in and of itself holds little water if the use of the term is not enforced by the holder of the mark. It is not the responsibility of the USPTO to enforce exclusivity. This responsibility rests with the holder and the courts. That said, it has not been shown in this forum that use of the mark has been enforced and held to the exclusive use of the holder, indicating that all use of the term "Reader's Circle" refers to the subject of this article. This leaves us once again, back to where we started. In order to establish notability, the article needs to be supported through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have read the AP article. However, the subject of this article is only briefly mentioned, when it appears that you were quoted about your website, promoting it as "an alternative to the traditional book club". This does not equate to significant coverage about the organization. The trademark does not establish notability. At this point, the burden falls to you to establish notability according to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we currently have nothing with which to indicate significance, importance, or notability. If you can provide a book written about the subject, or even a newspaper article or magazine article, it would help. But remember, it has to be about the organization, rather than an article about a separate subject, where the organization is only briefly mentioned or where the principals merely offer comment and quotes for publication. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Unfortunately you missed the point of the discussion about trademark. It had nothing to do with enforcing the mark. (That has already been done and is proved by the fact that you can follow the Random House link above and verify that they are no longer using it. A single letter difference in a name is adequate to distinguish a mark - Holiday Inn v. Holiday's Inn - so that they are using the term "Reader's Circle" as part of the larger name "Random House Reader's Circle" is immaterial; they changed the name.) The discussion of trademark was to explain how the mark had become a "genericized trademark" and in many cases is used synonymously for "book clubs." As for your remarks on independent sources, please do establish the connection between HarperCollins, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Reader's Circle. That would be an interesting argument to hear. The fact is the articles and book I have already included are independent and reliable, though it is true the coverage is not exclusively about Reader's Circle. However, according to your own Wikipedia guidelines, to establish significant coverage, it "need not be the main topic of the source material." Separately, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Reader's Circle has effectively changed the lexicon for book clubs in the U.S., which IS a "significant and demonstrable" effect on culture and society. And the external links I provide justify that claim just as effectively as the external links of the Great Books Foundation article. Normanrobert (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. The trademark has nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Establishing a connection between HarperCollins, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Reader's Circle would not establish notability. Sometimes, when there is a conflict of interest, it becomes difficult to view articles from a neutral point of view. A lot of claims have been made, but they simply aren't supported with reliable, independent sources or documentation. Bottom line, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 10:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. Cindamuse, I can only say I feel it is somewhat shameful how inattentively you have read my comments. It is clear you do not understand them, and they're readily intelligible, so I can only assume you have quickly skimmed them. Regarding a connection between the mentioned newspapers and publishers and Reader's Circle, it was not my assertion that there was a connection; it was yours. You said the articles were not independent, so there must be some connection. The fact is Wikipedia's own inclusion criteria explicitly warn against discriminating against smaller organizations because larger organizations "are likely to have more readily available verifiable information," and yet you are discriminating. The sources are independent, reliable, and significant, though not "the main topic of the source material," as your inclusion criteria again note is acceptable. I would also point out that you have said nothing about the effect of the organization on culture and society, to which I provide ample references, and which appears such a fact to Kinu he takes it for granted that a "reader's circle" is synonymous with a "book club." So again, I am sure as an admin you are very busy, but your reasons and just how quick you are to slap this down suggest you haven't really considered it. Specifically it would be informative if you could address the criteria for small organizations mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines rather than avoid the issue. I provided links to libraries across the U.S., in Canada, the U.K., and I could provide dozens more if you would like. It's how you justified the Great Books Foundation, oh, but that's another matter... you already knew its name. The fact is links to library districts are just as legitimate as links to universities, unless you also discriminate against public library districts and the people they serve. Normanrobert (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite all that text, you have not provided any reliable sources that show how this subject meets the general notability guideline. Owning a trademark does not grant the subject notability. The number of members does not grant notability. The links you provide do not show why this website is notable. A directory-style listing about it in a 400-page book is not significant coverage. A passing mention in an article is not significant coverage. Merely being mentioned is not coverage. Existing is not coverage. There needs to be actual detailed information about the subject of this article in sources. All of this is in the two links I've given you, and I'm not sure how many other ways to say this as, to be frank, a few of us have asked you to read the guidelines and provide sources. This would be more useful than WP:TLDR paragraphs about how you find the notability criteria discriminatory and providing lengthy, unnecessary information about trademark law that has no bearing on whether a website is notable. My advice, once again, is simple: please read WP:RS and attempt to find actual sources that discuss this subject in detail. --Kinu t/c 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Kino, I appreciate your comments, but you seem to be unaware that there are specific criteria for NON-COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. Here they are: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." Both of those criteria are clearly met and verified in the article.Normanrobert (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where are these multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources? There is still no significant coverage in reliable sources, as I and others have repeatedly noted you. Quoting a guideline without any evidence is useless. --Kinu t/c 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I think you guys are going to continually disagree. It may not be constructive to the discussion for this section of comments to continue. For instance, no more !votes have come in since it started. To any patrolling admin, I suggest relisting the discussion when the 7 days are up. I also suggest that we collapse this discussion but I don't want to do it if I'm the only one who thinks we should and I don't know the code used to do it anyway. OlYellerTalktome'20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. What would be of value to the discussion is actual sources, and this thread has not included such information. I would support its collapse but defer to another user to do so. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kino, here is your discussion of actual sources, and don't worry, I'm ready to drop out of this. The guidelines are very clear. There are separate ones for non-commercial organizations. You want to treat the non-profit world like the corporate world, but that's not what Wikipedia has done. Anyway, here is how you can see it, if you would like to approach it with an open mind. The question - according to the guidelines above - is: do the sources give information about the organization and its activities? Yes, they do - the WSJ clearly says the site lists book clubs; the LA Times article explains what a reader's circle is; and the book by HarperCollins tells readers both to use the site to create a world news reader's circle and that they can use it to find authors to speak to their book clubs. If somehow you haven't read this information in the sources cited, I don't know what to say, maybe re-read them. It's there, and every one of them is independent and reliable. The criteria for a non-commercial organization - information about the organization and its activities - are met. And if you would like to verify that Reader's Circle is a registered tax-deductible 501(c)(3), here is a link to the IRS database. It doesn't support search with an apostrophe, so you'll have to search for "readers circle," but it's there. It's a shame Wikipedia took the extra effort to create guidelines for non-commercial organizations, and yet you wish to have a one-size-fits-all mentality. Normanrobert (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a shame that you seem to be taking this personally rather than actually responding to the request to providing sources. If there was actual sourcing, I would be willing to retract everything I've already said, but that doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon... nonetheless, I'm going to try to help you one last time, if nothing else to show in good faith that I have asked you for sources and told you why the current sourcing is insufficient. Regardless of whether it's a for-profit, non-profit, a band, a person, etc., an article needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The GNG applies to everything (hence why it's called "general"). The criteria you cite say "usually notable"... this is no substitute for actual sources that discuss the subject in detail. After all, this is an encyclopedia and there need to be actual sources and actual content we can use in an article. Existence is not notability, which is all your references do. A one sentence listing telling me what the website does is not significant coverage. It files taxes as a non-profit... so? The same guidelines state: "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." If all it's gotten is two or three passing mentions that merely verify its existence and simply tell me what it is without anything more, then it's not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. If you feel that the mentions are sufficient, then I feel that there's nothing else I can say. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just so you know I'm not taking it personally, I'll let you have the last word. I respect the project and I've learned a great deal about it through all the exchange. Thanks for your time. Best, NNormanrobert (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources do not cover Reader's Circle in sufficient depth to establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:

    1. At 1,500 local book groups, MeetUp.com has a larger network but is a commercial site. – this is a footnote, not a source.
    2. Handcock, Nancy. Spirit of Service: Your Daily Stimulus for Making a Difference, (HarperCollins: New York, 2008), p. 10. – The source states: "Go to www.readerscircle.org, an Internet resource that helps people organize and sustain reader's circles. The site has a wealth of information; you can also post a listing on the site to attract potential members and connect with authors who will speak with your group by phone." As Kinu (talk · contribs) notes above, this is a directory entry. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
    3. Exclusive book clubs writing a new chapter in social status," Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2005. – Reader's Circle receives a tangential coverage in this source: "In New York, legal assistant Sarah Milks has a boldfaced posting on a Web site called readerscircle.org that starts off: NOT ACCEPTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS TIME. Despite that warning, 200 new applications have poured in over the past year, all but one of which were rejected." While a Wall Street Journal source generally establishes notability for a subject, Reader's Circle receives merely a one sentence mention. The remainder of the paragraph is about the group founded by Sarah Milks. In my opinion, the commentary about both Reader's Circle and Sarah Milk's group is of insufficient depth to establish notability for either of the topics.
    4. Carter, Chelsea J. "Book clubs evolve as page-turners," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 2007. – The source states:

    Norman Hicks founded Reader's Circle, a website aimed at promoting an alternative to the traditional book club, as a way to meet people after graduating college. Rather than have a group read one book and follow a structured format, Reader's Circle promotes bringing people together in public settings, such as coffeehouses, to discuss a variety of books at once.
    "I think a lot of people were drawn to it because they could read what they want, talk about it and get suggestions for other books," said Hicks, 29.

    The coverage here, as Cindamuse (talk · contribs) notes above, is trivial. Reader's Circle is mentioned as an example to the proposition by the article's author that book clubs are evolving as page-turners. The paragraph after the trivial discussion about Reader's Circle is:

    It's that same idea behind PaperBackSwap.com, an online book club that allows members to trade their books with others. The site also makes a book-of-the-month selection and offers live online chats for its members to discuss books, said founder Richard Pickering of Atlanta.

     Because Book's Circle is only mentioned in two sentences (excluding the founder's quote), along with similar website PaperBackSwap.com which is mentioned in a few more, there is not enough here to pass the bar of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires significant coverage.
    5. Archibald Library, Rancho Cucamonga, CA – this is a link to a library that hosts Reader's Circle. It contains no coverage about Reader's Circle the website and would be discounted as a source even if it did because only secondary sources, not primary ones, count toward establishing notability.
    6. Niles District Library, Niles, MI – this is also a library source; see #5.
    7. Stanly County Public Library, Albemarle, NC – this is also a library source; see #5.
    8. Rahway Public Library, Rahway, NJ – this is also a library source; see #5.
    9. Clarington Public Library, Bomanville, Ontario, Canada – this is also a library source; see #5.
    10. Brantford Public Library, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – this is also a library source; see #5.
    11. Richmond Library, North Yorkshire County, United Kingdom – this is also a library source; see #5.
    12. Eagle Harbor Book Co. Reader's Circle, Bainbridge Island, WA – this is a source from an independent bookstore; see #5.
    13. Socially Speaking, Garden City News April 4, 2008 – The source states:

    Joan Kuster and Edith Trestik will be hostesses for the Tuesday, April 8 th Reader's Circle at the Garden City Community Church. The book will be "Broken" by William Coper Moyers , a former resident of this Village. They will meet at 12 noon and it sounds very interesting.

     Tangential coverage in the "Notices" section of a community newspaper is not enough to pass the notability guidelines. Second, it is original research to use this source and the next two to verify that "The term has passed into common usage, appearing in press announcements as a taken-for-granted expression."
    14. Literary Week, Salisbury Post, April 11, 2010 – The source states:

    Book Club discussion of "Twilight." Tuesday, 12:15 p.m., Room 2234, RCCC South Campus. The Reader's Circle Book Club will read "Twilight," by Stephenie Meyer. This book was selected with RCCC students in mind, but everyone's invited. Discussion will emphasize characterization, heroism and the contrast of the film version. Contact Amelia Likin at likina@rowancabarrus.edu.- "Faculty Writes" panel discussion. Wednesday at 3 p.m., Room 106, South Campus.

     This is a community listing like the previous source.
    15. TheBokenOnline.com, March 16, 2011 – The source states:

    The Reader’s Circle, a Hoboken book club has their next event for this Thursday March 17th at 7PM to discuss the book A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce.
    The Reader’s Circle book group meets at 7:00PM in All Saints Church at 701 Washington Street in Hoboken, NJ. The Reader’s Circle is a community event. All book lovers are welcome. Free coffee and cake is offered at each monthly event. For more information email: readerscircle123@aol.com.

     This source is also a community listing like the previous two sources.

    The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which enable Reader's Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns mostly directory-type mentions or unrelated results. Likewise, a Google Books search also returns trivial mentions.

    I appreciate the work Normanrobert (talk · contribs) has spent crafting this article and responding to the arguments for deletion here. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability, this article must be deleted. Should Normanrobert find secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Reader's Circle, the article may be recreated. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to argue with that. Good work sir. OlYellerTalktome 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I initially intended to support keeping the article when I saw the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times articles. However, after I looked more deeply, I found that they did not constitute significant coverage. I posted such a long rationale to hopefully bring closure to this overdue deadlock.

Normanrobert, Reader's Circle can be recreated if significant coverage is found. See the three references at Starfall (website) for example. Though Starfall has few sources, it has received enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Three reliable publications devoted entire articles discussing it. Quality is more important than quantity. If you can locate three third-party reliable sources (e.g. newspaper or magazine articles) that devote five or more paragraphs of at least five sentences each (excluding quotes) to explicitly discussing Reader's Circle the international organization (and not the local chapters), then Reader's Circle will pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and the article may be restored. If you find those three references, feel free to leave a note on my talk page, so I can review them. I will even write the article for you so that you will not have to worry about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reader%27s_Circle&oldid=1270596136"