Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca's Kitchen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Francesca's Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD, non-notable book, no sources beyond Amazon.com Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn A special thanks to the contributors who found the print articles. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found two reviews easily. I will add them to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a third one and I will add it to the article also. Schuym1 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Amazon is not a reliable source; it is just like IMDB or another other site that harbors information and takes in the rest as reviews from customers. All the references point to review sites. I found nothing on Google except more review sites. I don't think they even have an official website... other people already took their name and registered it as a .com. Maybe if we are able to dig up the Publishers Weekly article or an article about this book from a newspaper source or two, we could save it... Lady★Galaxy 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Did you see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Because if that were really true, I do wonder why we don't have an article for every single book ever published that has been reviewed on a site. Lady★Galaxy 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have. It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read it? Schuym1 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these reliable sources, then? Care to show me some? (Please, no review sites...) Lady★Galaxy 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those review sites are reliable and they show notability. I am done discussing this with you. Schuym1 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll see what everyone else has to say about this article. Keep it or not? In the meantime, I went to go post on one of those official Wikipedia support pages to ask about review sites. Lady★Galaxy 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I got the answer. See here!
- A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability or non-notability. Lady★Galaxy 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the links are online bookstores. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the four links supplied as references, one is Amazon. Here, read the article: Amazon.com started as an on-line bookstore, but soon diversified to product lines of VHS, DVD, music CDs, MP3 format, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food, toys, etc. Amazon has established separate websites in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China and Japan. It also provides global shipping to certain countries for some of its products. One link I can't click, the other is broken, and the other is just a link to a site that is simply not a reliable source. It's no newspaper article or book on it. I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Lady★Galaxy 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is 2 links that are from newspapers.. I did not add the Amazon link. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Romantic Times is a reliable source because it is a magazine. Schuym1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that so? I never heard of such a magazine. Must not be mainstream enough. Well, I noticed that one of the links is broken. Lady★Galaxy 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Romantic Times is a reliable source because it is a magazine. Schuym1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is 2 links that are from newspapers.. I did not add the Amazon link. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the four links supplied as references, one is Amazon. Here, read the article: Amazon.com started as an on-line bookstore, but soon diversified to product lines of VHS, DVD, music CDs, MP3 format, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food, toys, etc. Amazon has established separate websites in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China and Japan. It also provides global shipping to certain countries for some of its products. One link I can't click, the other is broken, and the other is just a link to a site that is simply not a reliable source. It's no newspaper article or book on it. I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Lady★Galaxy 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the links are online bookstores. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll see what everyone else has to say about this article. Keep it or not? In the meantime, I went to go post on one of those official Wikipedia support pages to ask about review sites. Lady★Galaxy 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those review sites are reliable and they show notability. I am done discussing this with you. Schuym1 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these reliable sources, then? Care to show me some? (Please, no review sites...) Lady★Galaxy 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read it? Schuym1 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have. It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Did you see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Because if that were really true, I do wonder why we don't have an article for every single book ever published that has been reviewed on a site. Lady★Galaxy 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it has three reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of your sources show notability. If a source was a New York Times article, I would say otherwise. I await more sources as this book obviously fails everything except for the first criteria on WP:NB. DARTH PANDAtalk 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article only needs to pass one thing. The article passes 2 things, WP:BK and WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Publishers Weekly and Albuquerque Journal sources show just about enough notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references are just enough to meet notability standards, as per Phil Bridger. Needs some rewriting, though, as it reads like a bit of a puff piece as things stand. Fortunately, AfD isn't for cleanup. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You can't withdraw because there is a delete vote. Schuym1 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the result is obvious so I will close it per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2008 (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.