- 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 speedy delete. G7 — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Vince Molinaro
- Vince Molinaro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Template:Did you know nominations/Vince Molinaro. EEng ( talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I contributed most of the article so obviously I vote Keep. It seems to me that Dr. Molinaro is a notable author because his book, published by a fairly reputable publisher, John Wiley & Sons, was on the New York Times Bestseller list.Delete 71.174.67.162 ( talk) 18:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)But if you choose to delete it, please move it back into my user space/sandbox at User:Woz2/Vince Molinaro. I'll work on it when I can.Or leave it in place with a{{Notability}}tag. Thank you. Woz2 ( talk) 20:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read
WP:CONSENSUS and think about how inappropriate your post just above is. No, it's not obvious that you "vote" keep, because (a) this isn't a vote, it's a discussion which will continue to the point at which it's clear that most of us agree on the right answer, and (b) you're supposed to be forming an opinion based on your best attempt to understand applicable guidelines and apply them to this situation. It's already been pointed out to you (at the article Talk page linked above) that writing a bestselling book does not make a person notable -- the article is about this man, not his book, so for notability we need sources about him, not how well his book sold. Yet here you come repeating the same argument as before. You should be commenting on how you think applicable guidelines apply to the facts here, not thinking of yourself as in some kind of tug-of-war where each side pulls the hardest until someone trips and falls. I repeat, for the last time, that if you want to see this article kept, go find sources making substantial comment about the man himself. I've tried and found nothing. An editor posting below has tried, and found nothing. You, for obvious reasons, may succeed where we have failed. So please focus on that or I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad.
EEng (
talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. If it helps put things in perspective, I just noticed that John Grisham's (!) notability is being questioned, because thought he's sold a lot of books and a lot has been written about them, apparently not much has been written about him. So many or most of his books may be notable (and therefore warrant an article on WP) but he may not be. Actually, I suspect that in the end someone will find some NYT or New Yorker profiles of him, etc., and he will turn out to satisfy notability, but again, the fact that it's being questioned should put things in perspective for you.
- EEng, Maybe it's the nature of text-based communication, but I'm getting the sense both here and at the DYK that I've inadvertently written something that has annoyed you and that this whole thing isn't about the article at all, but about your annoyance at me personally. If this is so, I apologize for annoying you. I didn't mean to. Woz2 ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read
WP:CONSENSUS and think about how inappropriate your post just above is. No, it's not obvious that you "vote" keep, because (a) this isn't a vote, it's a discussion which will continue to the point at which it's clear that most of us agree on the right answer, and (b) you're supposed to be forming an opinion based on your best attempt to understand applicable guidelines and apply them to this situation. It's already been pointed out to you (at the article Talk page linked above) that writing a bestselling book does not make a person notable -- the article is about this man, not his book, so for notability we need sources about him, not how well his book sold. Yet here you come repeating the same argument as before. You should be commenting on how you think applicable guidelines apply to the facts here, not thinking of yourself as in some kind of tug-of-war where each side pulls the hardest until someone trips and falls. I repeat, for the last time, that if you want to see this article kept, go find sources making substantial comment about the man himself. I've tried and found nothing. An editor posting below has tried, and found nothing. You, for obvious reasons, may succeed where we have failed. So please focus on that or I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad.
EEng (
talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. If it helps put things in perspective, I just noticed that John Grisham's (!) notability is being questioned, because thought he's sold a lot of books and a lot has been written about them, apparently not much has been written about him. So many or most of his books may be notable (and therefore warrant an article on WP) but he may not be. Actually, I suspect that in the end someone will find some NYT or New Yorker profiles of him, etc., and he will turn out to satisfy notability, but again, the fact that it's being questioned should put things in perspective for you.
- As
EEng has explained, we are looking for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. For books, this requirement is often met by bona fide independent reviews in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and the like. Blurbs on the cover of the book don't count because they're not independent. NYT bestsellers will usually (but not always) get some reviews; but my quick look through some Google results didn't come up with any such reviews, not even at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. To be sure there's no confusion, the question here is notability of the author, not the book, so reviews of the book won't really help here either unless (as reviews sometimes do) they go into substantial background about the author.
EEng (
talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not according to WP:AUTHOR section 3: Reliable sources referencing an author's work bestow notability on the author. Woz2 ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- No -- you're cherrypicking individual words from the guideline, which actually says
- 3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- We need multiple ... independent ... articles or reviews discussing Molinaro's work. Not "referencing".
EEng (
talk) 22:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any cherry picking at all. And frankly I am not sure what it is that you are driving at. Are you suggesting that a best selling author is NOT notable? If so I can only say that your position is inconsistent with both
common sense and longstanding consensus within the community with respect to interpretation of section 3 of
WP:AUTHOR. Are you suggesting that the subject IS NOT in fact a best selling author? I believe that this notability conferring assertion is incontrovertibly backed by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your position, always a possibility and I welcome correction, your repeated insistence on more sources would seem to be suggesting that the sky is not
blue. More sources are ALWAYS desirable. But in this case they are not essential, as the subject's notability is clear. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're so confused it's almost like you're trying to be funny. When a book is a bestseller, that doesn't even make that book notable -- see WP:BKCRIT where, you'll note, "being a bestseller" is no part of the criteria. Instead, as usual, there have to be multiple independent sources etc etc.
- And even if one of Molinaro's books was notable, that doesn't make him notable, because
WP:NOTINHERITED. The test for his notability is (sigh) multiple, independent ... (shall I go on?) about him.
- You've contradicted yourself again. First you said you wanted sources about him, then sources "discussing Molinaro's work", now you're back to him. The "that" clause of AUTHOR3 clearly means "work that has been..." not "author that has been...". Notability of the work makes the author notable. And being in the New York Times makes the work notable. Woz2 ( talk) 14:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I won't be responding further since it's clear the result will be delete. EEng ( talk) 03:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any cherry picking at all. And frankly I am not sure what it is that you are driving at. Are you suggesting that a best selling author is NOT notable? If so I can only say that your position is inconsistent with both
common sense and longstanding consensus within the community with respect to interpretation of section 3 of
WP:AUTHOR. Are you suggesting that the subject IS NOT in fact a best selling author? I believe that this notability conferring assertion is incontrovertibly backed by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your position, always a possibility and I welcome correction, your repeated insistence on more sources would seem to be suggesting that the sky is not
blue. More sources are ALWAYS desirable. But in this case they are not essential, as the subject's notability is clear. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. To be sure there's no confusion, the question here is notability of the author, not the book, so reviews of the book won't really help here either unless (as reviews sometimes do) they go into substantial background about the author.
EEng (
talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As others have explained, the primary criterion for notability is significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not seeing that, but if you can find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his life or career, then please bring them forward and I'll gladly change this to keep. TBH, he seems like the sort of person who ought to have such coverage but doesn't. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is the author of a best selling book, a fact that appears to be reliably sourced. IMO this would seem to satisfy section 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Additional RS sources would be nice though. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 11:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for the reason given above by Ad Orientem. Eustachiusz ( talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
KeepChanged to delete -passes WP:GNG by way of sourcing, and WP:AUTHOR by way of a Times bestseller. We almost always keep bestselling authors, unless their article is so spammy as to be total crap.Bearian ( talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've always respected your judgment, so maybe I'm having a senior moment. Can you point me to something supporting "We almost always keep bestselling authors"? (I can't find it in the link you give.) My recollection is firmly the opposite e.g. a bestselling fad diet book might be notable, but even if it is, its nobody author about whom nothing has been written other than promotional blurb, can at the same time be non-notable -- and as I said above, WP:BKCRIT, quite strikingly, doesn't mention "bestseller" as a notability criterion for a book (forget its author), and similarly WP:AUTHOR says nothing about bestsellers either. I'll be happy to be corrected on this. In the meantime, take a closer look at the sourcing -- can you point to even one source with the kind of coverage required? EEng ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- We don't normally keep authors based on best seller status. There have been a couple long consensus discussions about this over the years. It's really only a gauge to keep looking for independent secondary sources. We normally keep authors based on book reviews, per
WP:AUTHOR. A best seller will usually have book reviews in reliable sources. --
Green
C 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- One reason we don't rely on Best seller lists is it's possible (and common) to simply buy your way onto the list. Not to make any specific accusations but "business leadership solutions" are typical of the type. One way you can tell is if the book reached a high mark on the best seller list (#4 in this case) and then disappear after a single week. It means there was possibly a bulk-buy to get on the list. -- Green C 01:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Of the sources present, I'm seeing:
- Seven articles/books written by Molinaro (or books containing articles/chapters written by him) - obvious primary sources.
- His bio at his workplace - another non-independent, primary source.
- Three links to best-seller lists - okay for establishing that the book was on the list, but not significant coverage.
- A link to an awards list - again, fine for establishing that he was given the award, but not significant coverage.
- Five articles about other things/people, containing canned statements from Molinaro - again, not significant, independent coverage of him.
- So I'm not seeing notability established in secondary sources, contrary to some claims above, either of him or of his book. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The best-seller status means little other than to keep looking for book reviews, which I did. It's odd this was a best-seller with no book reviews. -- Green C 13:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- At the bottom, I added some hits from the Highbeam teaser page. If anyone has an account that can get past the pay wall, they could flesh them out. They don't show up on Google. One is from 2005 from a now defunct magazine that only has a web archive from 2009 on. The T+D one appears to be a book review by the editor, Paula Ketter. HTH. 71.174.67.162 ( talk) 17:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It needs to be pointed out that the IP is
[1] is Woz2, who seems to have given up his account. I wouldn't call this sockpuppetry, however.
EEng (
talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried and I tried, but like you I just couldn't look away from this tragic postlude to my Wikipedia career. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way.
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I know it's hard not to feel shitty about having an article deleted, but I guarantee you that if you turn to other editing this will all be a distant memory before you know it. Someone will be happy to un-vanish you.
EEng (
talk) 04:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not leaving because of the article. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way?
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good source reliability wise but T&D is a specialty source so doesn't have a lot of readers, and it is only one review. Normally for book reviews we need a handful or so to show notability, the number depending on the quality of the sources and length of reviews. --
Green
C 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Normally" makes it sound like the standard is universally applied. Just for giggles, I clicked on the "random article" link. The first two times, the articles were better than mine but the third (
Louis Jaque also Canadian as it happens, but a painter) has no citations at all!
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's "normal" because WP:AUTHOR says "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" .. one book review is not "multiple". How many multiple depends on what people thing is enough to establish notability, which is a function of quality and reach of sources. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Green C 16:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Normally" makes it sound like the standard is universally applied. Just for giggles, I clicked on the "random article" link. The first two times, the articles were better than mine but the third (
Louis Jaque also Canadian as it happens, but a painter) has no citations at all!
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good source reliability wise but T&D is a specialty source so doesn't have a lot of readers, and it is only one review. Normally for book reviews we need a handful or so to show notability, the number depending on the quality of the sources and length of reviews. --
Green
C 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not leaving because of the article. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way?
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I know it's hard not to feel shitty about having an article deleted, but I guarantee you that if you turn to other editing this will all be a distant memory before you know it. Someone will be happy to un-vanish you.
EEng (
talk) 04:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried and I tried, but like you I just couldn't look away from this tragic postlude to my Wikipedia career. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way.
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It needs to be pointed out that the IP is
[1] is Woz2, who seems to have given up his account. I wouldn't call this sockpuppetry, however.
EEng (
talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy delete. G7 — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Vince Molinaro
- Vince Molinaro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Template:Did you know nominations/Vince Molinaro. EEng ( talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I contributed most of the article so obviously I vote Keep. It seems to me that Dr. Molinaro is a notable author because his book, published by a fairly reputable publisher, John Wiley & Sons, was on the New York Times Bestseller list.Delete 71.174.67.162 ( talk) 18:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)But if you choose to delete it, please move it back into my user space/sandbox at User:Woz2/Vince Molinaro. I'll work on it when I can.Or leave it in place with a{{Notability}}tag. Thank you. Woz2 ( talk) 20:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read
WP:CONSENSUS and think about how inappropriate your post just above is. No, it's not obvious that you "vote" keep, because (a) this isn't a vote, it's a discussion which will continue to the point at which it's clear that most of us agree on the right answer, and (b) you're supposed to be forming an opinion based on your best attempt to understand applicable guidelines and apply them to this situation. It's already been pointed out to you (at the article Talk page linked above) that writing a bestselling book does not make a person notable -- the article is about this man, not his book, so for notability we need sources about him, not how well his book sold. Yet here you come repeating the same argument as before. You should be commenting on how you think applicable guidelines apply to the facts here, not thinking of yourself as in some kind of tug-of-war where each side pulls the hardest until someone trips and falls. I repeat, for the last time, that if you want to see this article kept, go find sources making substantial comment about the man himself. I've tried and found nothing. An editor posting below has tried, and found nothing. You, for obvious reasons, may succeed where we have failed. So please focus on that or I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad.
EEng (
talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. If it helps put things in perspective, I just noticed that John Grisham's (!) notability is being questioned, because thought he's sold a lot of books and a lot has been written about them, apparently not much has been written about him. So many or most of his books may be notable (and therefore warrant an article on WP) but he may not be. Actually, I suspect that in the end someone will find some NYT or New Yorker profiles of him, etc., and he will turn out to satisfy notability, but again, the fact that it's being questioned should put things in perspective for you.
- EEng, Maybe it's the nature of text-based communication, but I'm getting the sense both here and at the DYK that I've inadvertently written something that has annoyed you and that this whole thing isn't about the article at all, but about your annoyance at me personally. If this is so, I apologize for annoying you. I didn't mean to. Woz2 ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read
WP:CONSENSUS and think about how inappropriate your post just above is. No, it's not obvious that you "vote" keep, because (a) this isn't a vote, it's a discussion which will continue to the point at which it's clear that most of us agree on the right answer, and (b) you're supposed to be forming an opinion based on your best attempt to understand applicable guidelines and apply them to this situation. It's already been pointed out to you (at the article Talk page linked above) that writing a bestselling book does not make a person notable -- the article is about this man, not his book, so for notability we need sources about him, not how well his book sold. Yet here you come repeating the same argument as before. You should be commenting on how you think applicable guidelines apply to the facts here, not thinking of yourself as in some kind of tug-of-war where each side pulls the hardest until someone trips and falls. I repeat, for the last time, that if you want to see this article kept, go find sources making substantial comment about the man himself. I've tried and found nothing. An editor posting below has tried, and found nothing. You, for obvious reasons, may succeed where we have failed. So please focus on that or I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad.
EEng (
talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. If it helps put things in perspective, I just noticed that John Grisham's (!) notability is being questioned, because thought he's sold a lot of books and a lot has been written about them, apparently not much has been written about him. So many or most of his books may be notable (and therefore warrant an article on WP) but he may not be. Actually, I suspect that in the end someone will find some NYT or New Yorker profiles of him, etc., and he will turn out to satisfy notability, but again, the fact that it's being questioned should put things in perspective for you.
- As
EEng has explained, we are looking for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. For books, this requirement is often met by bona fide independent reviews in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and the like. Blurbs on the cover of the book don't count because they're not independent. NYT bestsellers will usually (but not always) get some reviews; but my quick look through some Google results didn't come up with any such reviews, not even at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. To be sure there's no confusion, the question here is notability of the author, not the book, so reviews of the book won't really help here either unless (as reviews sometimes do) they go into substantial background about the author.
EEng (
talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not according to WP:AUTHOR section 3: Reliable sources referencing an author's work bestow notability on the author. Woz2 ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- No -- you're cherrypicking individual words from the guideline, which actually says
- 3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- We need multiple ... independent ... articles or reviews discussing Molinaro's work. Not "referencing".
EEng (
talk) 22:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any cherry picking at all. And frankly I am not sure what it is that you are driving at. Are you suggesting that a best selling author is NOT notable? If so I can only say that your position is inconsistent with both
common sense and longstanding consensus within the community with respect to interpretation of section 3 of
WP:AUTHOR. Are you suggesting that the subject IS NOT in fact a best selling author? I believe that this notability conferring assertion is incontrovertibly backed by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your position, always a possibility and I welcome correction, your repeated insistence on more sources would seem to be suggesting that the sky is not
blue. More sources are ALWAYS desirable. But in this case they are not essential, as the subject's notability is clear. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're so confused it's almost like you're trying to be funny. When a book is a bestseller, that doesn't even make that book notable -- see WP:BKCRIT where, you'll note, "being a bestseller" is no part of the criteria. Instead, as usual, there have to be multiple independent sources etc etc.
- And even if one of Molinaro's books was notable, that doesn't make him notable, because
WP:NOTINHERITED. The test for his notability is (sigh) multiple, independent ... (shall I go on?) about him.
- You've contradicted yourself again. First you said you wanted sources about him, then sources "discussing Molinaro's work", now you're back to him. The "that" clause of AUTHOR3 clearly means "work that has been..." not "author that has been...". Notability of the work makes the author notable. And being in the New York Times makes the work notable. Woz2 ( talk) 14:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I won't be responding further since it's clear the result will be delete. EEng ( talk) 03:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any cherry picking at all. And frankly I am not sure what it is that you are driving at. Are you suggesting that a best selling author is NOT notable? If so I can only say that your position is inconsistent with both
common sense and longstanding consensus within the community with respect to interpretation of section 3 of
WP:AUTHOR. Are you suggesting that the subject IS NOT in fact a best selling author? I believe that this notability conferring assertion is incontrovertibly backed by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your position, always a possibility and I welcome correction, your repeated insistence on more sources would seem to be suggesting that the sky is not
blue. More sources are ALWAYS desirable. But in this case they are not essential, as the subject's notability is clear. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. To be sure there's no confusion, the question here is notability of the author, not the book, so reviews of the book won't really help here either unless (as reviews sometimes do) they go into substantial background about the author.
EEng (
talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As others have explained, the primary criterion for notability is significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not seeing that, but if you can find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his life or career, then please bring them forward and I'll gladly change this to keep. TBH, he seems like the sort of person who ought to have such coverage but doesn't. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is the author of a best selling book, a fact that appears to be reliably sourced. IMO this would seem to satisfy section 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Additional RS sources would be nice though. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 11:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for the reason given above by Ad Orientem. Eustachiusz ( talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
KeepChanged to delete -passes WP:GNG by way of sourcing, and WP:AUTHOR by way of a Times bestseller. We almost always keep bestselling authors, unless their article is so spammy as to be total crap.Bearian ( talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've always respected your judgment, so maybe I'm having a senior moment. Can you point me to something supporting "We almost always keep bestselling authors"? (I can't find it in the link you give.) My recollection is firmly the opposite e.g. a bestselling fad diet book might be notable, but even if it is, its nobody author about whom nothing has been written other than promotional blurb, can at the same time be non-notable -- and as I said above, WP:BKCRIT, quite strikingly, doesn't mention "bestseller" as a notability criterion for a book (forget its author), and similarly WP:AUTHOR says nothing about bestsellers either. I'll be happy to be corrected on this. In the meantime, take a closer look at the sourcing -- can you point to even one source with the kind of coverage required? EEng ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- We don't normally keep authors based on best seller status. There have been a couple long consensus discussions about this over the years. It's really only a gauge to keep looking for independent secondary sources. We normally keep authors based on book reviews, per
WP:AUTHOR. A best seller will usually have book reviews in reliable sources. --
Green
C 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- One reason we don't rely on Best seller lists is it's possible (and common) to simply buy your way onto the list. Not to make any specific accusations but "business leadership solutions" are typical of the type. One way you can tell is if the book reached a high mark on the best seller list (#4 in this case) and then disappear after a single week. It means there was possibly a bulk-buy to get on the list. -- Green C 01:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Of the sources present, I'm seeing:
- Seven articles/books written by Molinaro (or books containing articles/chapters written by him) - obvious primary sources.
- His bio at his workplace - another non-independent, primary source.
- Three links to best-seller lists - okay for establishing that the book was on the list, but not significant coverage.
- A link to an awards list - again, fine for establishing that he was given the award, but not significant coverage.
- Five articles about other things/people, containing canned statements from Molinaro - again, not significant, independent coverage of him.
- So I'm not seeing notability established in secondary sources, contrary to some claims above, either of him or of his book. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The best-seller status means little other than to keep looking for book reviews, which I did. It's odd this was a best-seller with no book reviews. -- Green C 13:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- At the bottom, I added some hits from the Highbeam teaser page. If anyone has an account that can get past the pay wall, they could flesh them out. They don't show up on Google. One is from 2005 from a now defunct magazine that only has a web archive from 2009 on. The T+D one appears to be a book review by the editor, Paula Ketter. HTH. 71.174.67.162 ( talk) 17:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It needs to be pointed out that the IP is
[1] is Woz2, who seems to have given up his account. I wouldn't call this sockpuppetry, however.
EEng (
talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried and I tried, but like you I just couldn't look away from this tragic postlude to my Wikipedia career. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way.
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I know it's hard not to feel shitty about having an article deleted, but I guarantee you that if you turn to other editing this will all be a distant memory before you know it. Someone will be happy to un-vanish you.
EEng (
talk) 04:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not leaving because of the article. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way?
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good source reliability wise but T&D is a specialty source so doesn't have a lot of readers, and it is only one review. Normally for book reviews we need a handful or so to show notability, the number depending on the quality of the sources and length of reviews. --
Green
C 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Normally" makes it sound like the standard is universally applied. Just for giggles, I clicked on the "random article" link. The first two times, the articles were better than mine but the third (
Louis Jaque also Canadian as it happens, but a painter) has no citations at all!
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's "normal" because WP:AUTHOR says "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" .. one book review is not "multiple". How many multiple depends on what people thing is enough to establish notability, which is a function of quality and reach of sources. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Green C 16:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Normally" makes it sound like the standard is universally applied. Just for giggles, I clicked on the "random article" link. The first two times, the articles were better than mine but the third (
Louis Jaque also Canadian as it happens, but a painter) has no citations at all!
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good source reliability wise but T&D is a specialty source so doesn't have a lot of readers, and it is only one review. Normally for book reviews we need a handful or so to show notability, the number depending on the quality of the sources and length of reviews. --
Green
C 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not leaving because of the article. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way?
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I know it's hard not to feel shitty about having an article deleted, but I guarantee you that if you turn to other editing this will all be a distant memory before you know it. Someone will be happy to un-vanish you.
EEng (
talk) 04:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried and I tried, but like you I just couldn't look away from this tragic postlude to my Wikipedia career. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way.
71.174.67.162 (
talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It needs to be pointed out that the IP is
[1] is Woz2, who seems to have given up his account. I wouldn't call this sockpuppetry, however.
EEng (
talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.