This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
I suggest that references to LibraryThing, Publisher's Weekly, and other such bibliographic tools be removed as not indicating notability. PW lists everything published, LT lists anything that ANYONE inputs (which could be the author). These are similar to listing Amazon as a source. Sources should be indicative of some intellectual pronouncement, not just anything bibliographic.
LaMona (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no LibraryThing ref in the article.. PW is selective and doesn't review everything published, maybe 1% in that range. Most books are never reviewed I believe only about 10% of books published ever get a professional review. -- GreenC23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, PW does not review everything - but it is a trade publication, not an academic publication. I do think it reviews much more than 1%, but I'll try to find out. But brief reviews supporting sales are not a sign of notability. I'm not sure what you mean by a "professional" review. I would consider a NYTimes review to indicate some notability, although only a NYT review may not be enough. Also, the review may say that the book is horrible. I'd be looking for additional reviews in NY Review of Books, Atlantic, New Yorker, etc. And a review by a notable author, rather than a journalistic review, would hold more weight. Articles in academic journals would be gold.LaMona (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP article on Publishers Weekly: "The book review section, not added until the early 1940s, grew in importance over the past half-century, and it currently offers opinions on 7,000 new books each year. Since reviews are scheduled to appear one month or two months prior to the publication date of a book, books already in print are seldom reviewed. These anonymous reviews are short, often no more than 220 words, and the review section can be as long as 40 pages, filling the second half of the magazine." 7,000 a year! And no more than 220 words. I would say that PW does very, very little to establish notability.LaMona (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at here ("indicate some notability" .. "very little to establish notability") but if your intention is to nominate this article for deletion than go ahead, but PW is a reliable source we use on Wikipedia by common consensus. -- GreenC17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend this page for deletion, as it was originally created by the subject of the article (User: Donbendell) in 2012, who remains the primary contributor and editor up to September 2023. The tone and content violates neutral point of view principles and is a BLP subject writing and editing his own BLP. 2600:4040:25B7:C700:9075:3B5C:8A06:9EE9 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been actively involved since day 1 and watching it. The topic is notable. If I were to rewrite it from scratch it would probably look pretty similar. I understand folks dislike it when the subject of a BLP is also the creator of the page and a contributor. It's not ideal. But there are no rules against it. You say it violates COI, how so? Please quote the violation. So long as they are cooperative and follow WP:COI. -- GreenC16:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
