Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicagoland Vampires (series)

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 keep. Tone 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagoland Vampires (series)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NB - references are vampire fan-blog reviews and author's website --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NB. Edison (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [1], [2], [3] (Dead link, but "You would think an author who writes a series of books subtitled “A Chicagoland Vampires Novel” would be a native Chicagoan, or at least a transplant" which appears in the description on this link show that it was significant coverage), and [4]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native Chicagoans don't much like the term Chicagoland. Glittering Pillars (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: First, Library Journal is a strong source. Second, it's an open-ended series with a contract for more to come, so it will continue to have source added. (I know, don't throw crystal ball at me. I'm just saying it's sources are good enough now and in the future.) Also, I am an inclusion. If there are people looking at the page, beyond the author, then it's worthwhile to somebody and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabiona (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Library Journal really considered a strong source when considering notability? It's literary review publishes reviews of several hundred books each month. Would each of those books be considered notable? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Publishing several hundred reviews per month covers only a small fraction of the overall market, and reviews there have substantial influence on what ends up in US public libraries. And therefore Keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2009 (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.