Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout Girl: Growing Up and Drying Out in America

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 Merge to author. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Girl: Growing Up and Drying Out in America[edit]

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

This book has no third party reliable sources that I can find, and therefore fails WP:NB. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on talk page of article by article author)Hi, I'm trying to create a page for a book that I love. Sorry if it's taking me a while to get everything in order. I do not believe this page should be deleted-- it's a valid book with great reviews. I was kind of surprised that the book was not on here already and decided to add it.

We have notability standards; not everything that exists deserves an article on Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NB, which requires multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, which I do not see here. If you are Jennifer Storm, or are working for her, you should realize Wikipedia's strong policy against advertising, and the WP:COI policy. She has priorly attempted to write about herself and her books. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, I am not her nor do I work for her. The book was nominated for one of the 40 best adult non-fiction books in 2008 by the PSLA. That's how I found it and why I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrown224 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i think the authors website shows some evidence of notability, although it would have to be verified. mention in the Advocate, and an interview by dr drew, i think helps. see [1]. we cant use her site as a reference, but each individual source can be cited if found online or in print. her position as executive director of stated org, and profiles of her in major outlets, mean that her books (her second one out just now) probably should get automatic notability, as long as they are not trivial themselves (cookbooks, gift books, ephemera, etc). I am probably not ready to do the work to actually improve the article, but thats not necessary here, we just have to decide if there is a possibility the article can show notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article on the author. Whe has more than one book, on the same general topic, and he information will be best combined. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with author's article - I can't see any indication that the book meets WP:NB or WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:43, 23 June 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.