Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The King of Torts

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.

Closing as snow keep. My gut feeling tends me to side toward deletion far more often than is average for an admin hereabouts, and my awareness of this is what makes me generally avoid the closing of AfDs. But even as a sporadic "deletionist", I'm puzzled by this nomination. Whether or not a merge would have been warranted, a request to merge would at least have been understandable; by contrast, a request to delete an article, however bad, on a popular ("bestselling") book by an unusually well known novelist is baffling indeed. Hoary (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Torts[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, does meet WP:BK, Criteria 1 and Criteria 5. It's a real book, written by John Grisham, one of the highest selling authors in the United States, and published by Dell Publishing, one of the largest publishing houses. There's tons of media coverage by reliable sources out there on the web. The article is currently in poor shape and it does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the same as meriting deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Debuted #1 on the New York Times bestsellers list in 2003 and stayed in the top fifteen for 23 weeks thereafter. bd2412 T 02:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow keep , actully. It should have been obvious that it meets wp standards for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep There are sources available ([1] [2]), it should be fairly obvious this isn't a deletion candidate. Someone another 07:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Comment I'll comment on this because it's the most recent nomination by this editor. This editor seems to have nominated a considerable number of books for deletion, each time saying only that it doesn't meet notability standards. Most of the books are major releases with clear notability. I don't think these nominations meet the level of thoughtfulness in initiating an AfD that the community should expect. Perhaps an admin would see fit to close all of these AfDs? I already suggested to Mr. Liefting that if he has a disagreement with the general standard of book notability, there is an appropriate venue to discuss changing that, instead of contesting individual books. Leoniceno (talk) 09:42, 21 October 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.