Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ni Bell (2nd nomination)

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. Also temporarily salted due to repeated re-creation. —Darkwind (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Bell[edit]

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

Previously deleted at afd. recreated seemingly to push a book - the editor who created it seems to have added the book to several articles under at least 3 similar user names. Bit part actor who compiled a book - which does not appear to have had much independent coverage, and Amazon.co.uk currently lists as unavailable. noq (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it can be verified that the subject compiled a book for The Royal British Legion, no evidence has been found to contradict the 2011 AfD consensus that he is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to be deleted is it not worth adding a page on the book rather than the author, for educational significance as the book is held in the british library and the imperial war museum collections for the purpose of free educational or study aid. The book as already been accepted by wiki as notable in the bibliography of another wiki page and this might contribute to developing general information about the book. --Will peace (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is WP:notable about the book? And as explained before your having adding it into another page has absolutely no significance in making it notable in any way. Being in a library is not notable - especially the British library as that gets a copy of all books published in the UK. noq (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading about a particular person on wiki and I see they have taken part in a particular book, usually I wish to know more about that book, without leaving the wiki site ie i click an internal link rather than hitting google in a new tab or the isbn link. obviously i assumed wrongly, that this would make the content of wiki more comprehensive to me and others like me as a wiki user. As i agreed with you previously, been on another wiki page does not make something notable but for the reason just mentioned it seemed a natural extension of interest and practicality. The book seems to contain notable contributors and references and captures a specific point in time, in our history, i find that interesting and notable im sure many others do. As I understand it the Imperial War Museum only requests items for their collections unlike the British Library who receive copies by default as you point out. Also for your own reference amazon don't stock the book but Waterstones do http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/ni+bell/in+the+footsteps+of+war/8864001/ and have it available to order. And a kindle edition is available from amazon here http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Footsteps-War-Remembrance-ebook/dp/B00A44ZHQE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365774311&sr=8-1&keywords=ni+bell+90 again I provide this for your information only as your own search didn't seem very extensive. To conclude I can only provide sources that are out there and why I personally looked to expand the content on wiki as it was something of interest to me and possibly others. Sharing the great pool of information out there and all that. Obviously not this time round and I completely understand your reasons for doing so and your explanations given for deleting the page. --Will peace (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NBOOK for what qualifies as a notable book - being available for sale or in a library does not meet those requirements. noq (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your qualifications for a notable book already. I think you need to read the whole discussion again and your own comments to see that I only answered the points you raised and corrected your information. At no point did I say a book being for sale made it notable in anyway. As for it being available in the British Library I already addressed that point. And I agree the page should be deleted based on what Wiki stipulate and my reasons why i thought it was of interest, which conflict with wiki. It's now becoming tiresome and a waste of time. Delete the page. --Will peace (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources for both author and book. Both fail all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biggest claim is have two editions of a book released, which are self-published. SalHamton (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (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.