Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Very Brave Witch

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Brave Witch

[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)

Can't find sources, especially reviews, for the book. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a nice book, but nothing but a passing mention in sources and being reviewed doesn't make it notable. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Rul Joules (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ This has been reviewed in newspapers, but I added refs from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, and SLJ. Rul Joules (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs to the article! Rul Joules (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the fact that it was a NY Times Best Selling Book Rul Joules (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Rul Joules (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now I've added ref to the page which mentions the book as a bestseller Rul Joules (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about I suggest that we ~~keep~~ the article? Rul Joules (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article because it's notable, like the fact that is was a NY Times Bestselling Book. I've also added the image. Rul Joules (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rul Joules: You can only have one vote here and have said your piece. Let the conversation go forward; any additional votes will be considered disruption. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources aren't super strong, but it's got mentions in the School Library journal and I find it also being discussed in a theses in GScholar. Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly are probably ok for GNG. The NYT best seller helps notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this in Common Sense Media here reviews it. That also helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — c’mon people, a WP:BEFORE would have helped us here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, being a NYT best seller is a plus but there is also enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG --Assyrtiko (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four reviews, from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Common Sense Media, and School Library Journal. The reviews appear to count as (somewhat borderline) significant coverage, full reviews are not minor news stories or routine announcements, though the Publishers Weekly is the shortest at merely 134 words and only borderline pass WP:SIGCOV. Those references are WP:RS, Kirkus and Common Sense Media are listed as reliable on WP:RSP. Additionally, Publishers Weekly is a longstanding, reputable magazine that has detailed about us and submission guidelines, 1, 2, see Publishers Weekly. School Library Journal also appears to be a credible magazine, with guidelines at 1, 2 that seems to show a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Those reviews are also secondary and independent, note that this Kirkus review is published properly, not via the pay-to-review Kirkus Indie service. WP:NBOOK appears to be met, criteria 1 states that The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. All of those four references are proper reviews that count towards this, though I acknowledge the Kirkus and Publishers Weekly lean on the shorter side, with the latter debatably not non-trivial. However, the bestseller listing from The New York Times counts towards a book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list given the list has been widely reported, see The New York Times Best Seller list. As it also counts towards NBOOK criteria 1, IMO the four reviews and a bestseller list appearance meet NBOOK in addition to GNG being satisfied, therefore I am voting keep. VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An NYT bestseller with enough coverage in reputable sources to pass WP:NBOOK. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one more review (from the NYT News Service) and also expanded it so that there's more information, including a synopsis, thanks to some people on YT videos of people reading the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 25 November 2022 (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.