Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Zodiac Killer

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 merge to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Zodiac Killer[edit]

[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)

{{notability}} tag posted since January 26, 2021. Talk page discussion at Talk:The Myth of the Zodiac Killer#Notability tag appears to suggest that article fails WP:Notability (books). Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation - Quite simply, the book itself is not notable. Of the sources presented in the current article, only the Mel Magazine and El Confidencial articles could be considered to be significant coverage at all. The rest of the sources are either not about the book/author at all and just about the Zodiac Killer (most of them), not secondary (the interviews and the book itself) or just a one-sentence mention (the ABC article). And while the two sources that are actually relevant do talk extensively on the author and his theories, they really do not talk much about the book itself at all. The Mel Magazine article, which is the single most extensive article on the author, does not even mention the book. I tried searching for any possible reviews or other coverage in reliable source that could actually fulfil WP:NBOOK, and was unable to find anything. I do think the coverage on Horan's theories warrants it at least being mentioned in the appropriate section of the main Zodiac Killer article, which it already is, but there is nothing to indicate that his self-published book on them garnered enough notability to justify an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zodiac Killer#Public speculation. I spent a while thinking about this one; I don't think the sourcing can support a stand-alone article, but both the hypothesis and the most notable-to-date book revolving around it deserve mention elsewhere. I don't think the sourcing is quite as bad as Rorschacma does (we differ on the value of interviews), and I think there's content here that shouldn't be lost in a redirect and would fit well into the primary article. I also think it's possible it could be re-split at some point if thoughts on the book's notability change, so I'd rather err on the side of caution. Ultimately: doesn't warrant an article, does warrant discussion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments on the article talk. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:36, 19 February 2021 (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.