Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game, Get Some!: What Women Really Want

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 Kenya Moore#Authoring, exercise video and hair care line. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game, Get Some!: What Women Really Want[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet the threshold standards for notability of books on Wikipedia: the Library of Congress does not catalogue it, according to their online catalogue search. The mere fact that the book is available somewhere listed on WP:Book sources doesn't mean that it meets the threshold standards. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 12:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 12:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article does not fail the WP:BKTS. By means of Wikipedia:Book sources, the book has a verified International Standard Book Number and it's available on reliable credible online bookstores/libraries such as Barnes & Noble, Open Library, LibraryThing, etc. plus, being written by the first African-American who won the Miss USA which is a prestigious honor and is being celebrated during Black History Month, adds more notability to it and discusses the book from an outside-literature perspective. Bionic (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Anyone can buy an ISBN. The book does not inherit the notability of its author. I looked for reviews at Kirkus and Publishers Weekly and found none. Library Thing is a metadata website for cataloging, not a library. Similarly, Open Library's Wikipedia article states that it seeks to create "one web page for every book ever published". The book has a whopping nine holdings in WorldCat. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. They are in fact, libraries; OttoBib, LibraryThing, Open Library & Goodreads are all library 2.0 which is a species of digital library.

And furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the book contains mémoire of the first black woman who won the Miss USA that would justify a standalone article for the book and discusses it from an outside-literature perspective which adds more notability & importance to the article. Bionic (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, library 2.0-- a term I have t heard I AGES-- is the integration with modern internet use and libraries (some of it is social media). GoodReads is a website where people make lists of their past, present, and future reads. The other that you list are also metadata sites...OverDrive and Hoopla are closer to digital libraries. And their holdings are on WorldCat. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add the book to her article? It didn't get reviews from any of the trade publications, newspapers, or any named critics so far as I have found. It's not had a big effect on... Anything. It's not a memoir but a (not very) popular nonfiction title. So add the title to her article if you want to see the info preserved on Wikipedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to tell me what those websites are. What I said is based on Wikipedia's content: They are all in W:Category:Library 2.0 which is subcategory of W:Category:Digital libraries.

and I didn't say the book is a memoir I said it contains her mémoire. There's a difference. Bionic (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said. I'm saying that because it is not a memoir but a popular self-help title that it doesn't reflect enough of its author to have been of interest to those who care to read about her; had it been a memoir, it might have been a different story. Your understanding of the classification of libraries is tenuous. I'm guessing these are old categories that could stand some review and I'll look into that; I guess they could be categorized that way because they relate to the digital libraries, but this doesn't make them digital libraries. I'm done here for now. The chances of this surviving the deletion process are slim. I don't know what your editing interests are, but there are many more worthy hills to fight on in AfD related to women, people of color, and books... and the intersection of the three. I strongly recommend you add this book to author's page if you want to see the information preserved. Best of luck to you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with my 'understanding of the classification of libraries'! I just referred to WP's categories and that's it.

and 'hills to fight on'??!! I didn't know that we're 'fighting'!... Bionic (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are not. You are fighting to keep the article. In that fight, referring to Wikipedia's categories makes for a poor argument. You can believe these library businesses are libraries, but even if they were, that doesn't change that OCLC has the book in fewer than 10 libraries worldwide, and even if it were held in 900, if it never got critical reviews, and was not cataloged by LoC it's all moot. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is better that this article can be kept as a redirect target to Kenya Moore. The subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:GNG? It does have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Bionic (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenya Moore#Authoring, exercise video and hair care line as a useful target for the search phrase. It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The only useful source in the article is possibly Jet. A search of Book Review Index showed a single review in Ebony (Nov 2007; vol. 62, no. 1) but at 45 words, it's barely a mention. Expand summary style within the parent article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, a gsearch does not bring up any reviews from reliable sources (the Ebony snip review might be ok if there was another with more depth but definitely not by itself), btw, being listed/reviewed/discussed on Barnes & Noble, Open Library, LibraryThing, OttoBib, Goodreads contributes zero wikinotability to a book. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2020 (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.