Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Being in Love... (Bliss or Curse)

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. no possible notability, and no reason to userify , unless evidence appears that it might meet notability DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being in Love... (Bliss or Curse)[edit]

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

It is a novel that appears to have been self-published by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadstart Publishing. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)'s requirement "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." It got covered in The Free Press Journal [1] but I don't see any other coverage. maclean (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — maclean (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles also who do not have any list of references or notability! This one seems better and simple than other Pomp ones. And it is little known too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.191 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia is listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I am willing to keep the article if additional coverage in published works can be presented. maclean (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will giving the ISBN in reference will work? And the book deals with a good subject matter; though it is published by the publishers who are notorious for some bad causes! Yet, the book reviews will start to come in upcoming days, so then they will be presented. And as the article does not promise any great words or does not assert any gigantic thoughts about the book, so the simple article can be verified with the given references? Please be kind to simply made articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.71.223 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Having an ISBN does not count towards notability. Once upon a time in the distant past of Wikipedia it used to be far easier to pass notability guidelines, but the current notability guidelines are pretty strict when it comes to books. The book must be one of the following to pass WP:NBOOK:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. (This excludes blog entries, database entries, any primary sources, or basically anything that comes from something other than an independent and reliable source that Wikipedia considers to be usable. Brief trivial mentions do not count towards notability regardless of whatever source it's in.)
The book has won a major literary award. (This must be a major award. Winning a blog award or any minor award will not count. Some of them can count towards notability, but the vast majority of awards won't even do that. This qualification is for the big ones such as Caldecott or similar.)
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (Short films and movies that never really gained a lot of attention or critical praise usually don't count unless they were recognized in some format.)
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. (This means multiple schools, not just one or two.)
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. (No book has passed this guideline without passing at least 2-3 of the guidelines above. Even then, less than .0001% of authors meet this guideline. This is pretty much for Poe and Shakespeare rather than Laurell K Hamilton or Stephen King.)

It's just insanely hard for a self-published book to meet notability guidelines in most cases. I also have to warn you that we can't keep an article because other poorly sourced articles exist or because more sources might eventually become available. I especially want to warn against that, as odds are the reviews that come in are almost always from non-notable book blogs. This isn't meant as an insult to the blogs, just that 99.99999% of them are considered to be non-usable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The problem with the Free Press link is that it only lists the book synopsis from Amazon. This makes it a WP:PRIMARY source at best and primary sources or sources like that can never show notability. Book reviews would show notability if they existed, but only if they were done through reliable sources and were in-depth. As stated above, blogs don't count towards notability and if the book is only mentioned briefly ("Blah blah blah is like Being in Love, which also deals with honor killings), that won't count towards notability. That the book deals with a notable subject matter also doesn't give it notability, no matter how noble the book's intentions are. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I know this can seem frustrating when you have a book that is self-published and is unlikely to gain the attention that the bigger titles and authors will, but this book just doesn't pass the notability guidelines in place for books. I have no problem with this being userfied, if that's the case. I did a big cleanup of the article, so it'd be in good shape to userfy if someone wanted to do that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is userfy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.60 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userfication. Moving the article from the Wikipedia namespace to the User space. Presumably to the creator's namespace. maclean (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find useful sources to evidence notability, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't notable. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2012 (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.