Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side

[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)

Can find no confirmation that this book meets any of the criteria at WP:BKCRIT: #1. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage. (I only found one independent review but still rather brief review at Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, by Kerri Mathew.) #2. It has received no awards. #3. It has not been noted for any contributions to the field. #4. It has not been used as instruction. #5. The author is not historically significant, which may explain why she does not have her own WP article. This book article only reflects its listing in the typical directories; see also WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as two reviews easily found, and one of them is a starred review, a level of positive reception that few books see. Nominator should consider looking for reviews in WP:BEFORE. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can withdraw the nomination but you should avoid accusations. I stated in the nomination that I found one review but considered it to be too brief, and that conclusion could be debated. You also said you found two reviews but did not mention what they are. See what the next voter did. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reviews to the article, which is beyond what AfD calls for. I assume you are watching the article and saw my additions, or have since noticed them. Googling simply the title, sans quotes, and "reviews" retrieves the Publishers Review. Too many book articles are nominated for deletion when the antidote is on the first page of Google. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviews available that aren't sourced in article include Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, School Library Journal, The Booklist, and others visible in this search. Clearly passes WP:NBOOK Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviews from PW and SLJ were present in the article some time ago here, though not directly linked--they were copy/pasted from Amazon and linked to that instead. It's too bad the editor removed the info without trying to salvage the PW reception, as that indicated notability, and might have prevented this AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, and WP:GNG, this book has received multiple independent reviews that is now reflected by the article (thanks to DiamondRemley39), i note that when the article was nominated, the article mentioned that the book is held by aroung 1100 libraries (see here), a pretty good indication that there will be reviews out there. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:21, 25 May 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.