Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daredevil's Manual

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. Sources provided are indeed on the trivial side. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daredevil's Manual[edit]

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

I'm not finding references that convince me this book meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – Does not appear to meet WP:BKCRIT. After several source searches, I have only found~~ one short review: [1]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew my !vote above for the time being. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything either, although I did find a source for the author here. If more sources can be found then we could have an article for the author, although it'd need more than just the two sources listed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Books". Star-News. 2005-01-11. p. 4D. Retrieved 2015-03-09.
  The article notes:
  'The Daredevil's Manual' by Ben Ikenson (Barnes & Noble, $9.95). The Worst-Case Scenario people get some competition from this volume, which shows readers how to rip a telephone book in half (suggestion: start with a small one), juggle chainsaws, hold rattlesnakes in one's mouth, drive nails into one's nostrils, walk on coals or drive a motorcycle through a wall of fire.
  Don't try to sue the bookstore, by the way. The publishers say this is all "for entertainment purposes only" and disclaim all liability. (Darn!)
2. Maniaty, Tony (2006-03-18). "Miscellany". The Australian.
  The article notes:
  The Daredevil's Manual
  By Ben Ikenson, Macmillan, 172pp, $19.95
  ADMIT it: you've always wanted to juggle chainsaws or swallow a sword. You just weren't sure how to do it, right? Ben Ikenson's handy guide is a lawyer's dream, although disclaimers are prominent. Walking on hot coals ``can seriously impair pedestrian mobility; balancing 75 drinking glasses on your chin can leave ``heavy glass shards in your body; wrestling an alligator tempts ``permanent damage, disfigurement and death. Extremes: catching an arrow mid-flight while blindfolded, and holding live rattlesnakes in the mouth. Good luck.
3. Swart, Genevieve (2006-04-30). "Humor - Books". Sun Herald.
  The review notes:
  The Daredevil's Manual
  Ben Ikenson
  (Pan Macmillan, $19.95)
  THINK about it: what kind of person needs a manual to be a daredevil? Got the answer? Good. Now we've ascertained this is a book for little, grey men in little, grey offices, let's look at its other crimes: chiefly, not being funny and relying on internet research. A bold cover appears to promise lessons on parachuting off buildings, walking on hot coals and eating live scorpions, then the publishers immediately get cold feet, issuing a comprehensive disclaimer warning you not to try swallowing swords and the like at home. Yawn. Suddenly, a bed of nails sounds preferable to actually reading this gimmick.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Daredevil's Manual to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. ...
Cunard (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above reviews from Cunard are reproduced in full. All are on the trivial side. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (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.