Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Spencer's Big Book of Numbers

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 redirect to Adam_Spencer#Book. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Spencer's Big Book of Numbers[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Could redirect to Adam Spencer#Book. Boleyn (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I couldn't really find anything to show that this book passes notability guidelines. It exists, but existing does not mean notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete unless enough third-party media attention can be found to justufy a separate article per WP:GNG. In its current sourceless state it doesn't look notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the creator of the article, but doesn't it now meet WP:GNG due to it having two reliable sources in The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, in which it is the main focus point?Jjamesryan (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I regard WP:NBOOK as probably Wikipedia's worst notability guideline (with WP:PROF coming a close second) as virtually all widely-published books and a hell of a lot of vanity press works meet it, but this does seem to meet its criterion 1. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, Nick-D, does that mean it's a Keep? Jjamesryan (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Afraid not - I don't want to endorse WP:NBOOK (which clearly isn't consistent with WP:GNG given the low level of sourcing it specifies), and don't think that this is a particularly noteworthy book. I just wanted to note this. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, doesn't it also meet the GNG? Significant coverage, as it is the main focus point of the article, reliable as they are The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, two well-known and well-respected newspapers, I am unsure about the definition of primary, seconary and tertiary sources, they are independent of the subject, and I don't really understand the presumed bit. Jjamesryan (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The articles are lightweight promotional pieces Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2015 (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.