Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dead Fathers Club

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) Goodvac (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Fathers Club[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not so sure that this doesn't pass notability guidelines. The article most certainly needs cleanup, as it looks like it's full of fancruft and OR, but this does seem to have actual reviews and articles about it out there to show notability. That the Guardian reviewed it says a lot. Let me see what I can do.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned out a lot of the nonsense that smacked of original fan research and I've removed all of the blatantly unusable links, such as reviews by non-notable book review blogs. I've found reviews by the NPR, US Weekly, The Guardian, and others, so I feel that it passes notability guidelines now. As far as the movie option goes, the only claim for this is on the author's website and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere else other than this that I can find, so I think it's best to leave it off until we have better sources to verify this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as it stands now (good work, Tokyogirl79) has multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews--I spot checked USA Today and NPR--and so passes the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it does not pass WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of WP:BK states "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This has been reviewed through multiple independent and non-trivial news sites, which counts as notability under part one of WP:BK. It passes, at least from what I can see of the notability guidelines for books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has substantial reviews in major publications. Clearly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG and criteria #1 at WP:BKCRIT. Also, the nomination refers to an entire page of notability guidelines for books, hence the nomination doesn't provide specific rationale for the article's removal from Wikipedia. An article shouldn't be deleted per an entire page of guidelines! Clarification of which points of WP:BK the topic is asserted to fail would have been helpful. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nomination would implicitly mean the subject failed all criteria; if the subject passed any one of the criteria, then it would meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple reviews in major publications establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per TokyoGirl, article looks better; meets WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2012 (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.