Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Friends for Never

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. If people wish to merge, they can discuss the matter further at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends for Never

Unnotable book that fails all aspects of WP:BK. Tag for notability issues since June until it was removed by the same person who removed the PROD with the reason of "this is one of the most popular book series for young people in the united states. deletion is wrong." The series may be notable, but that does not automatically make every in said series notable. None of these books have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." They have not won any notable literary awards. They have not "been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." They are not used in any schools nor are the subject of instructional material. Nor is the author historically significant by any stretch of the imagination.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. All are unnotable books in a barely notable teenage mass market, mass produced book series. All have been tagged for notability issues since June or July until they notability tag was inappropriately removed when they were deprodded. All of these books fail all aspects of WP:BK.:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep all, or merge to The Clique series at worst. They seem to be semi-notable, given sources like this and this. The latter at least suggests notability for the series as a whole, so I would think that a merger would be acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than weak notability, they're one of the most popular series for children in the United States, having sat on numerous bestseller lists. The latest installment shipped 350k copies in the US alone. I do not believe any effort was made by the nominator to actually find out the popularity of this series. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one has questioned the SERIES popularity, that is why it has its own article. That does not make every book in the series notable. Notability is not inherited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As each book is shipping hundreds of thousands of copies on first printing alone... Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? So does every other mass market book. Again, read WP:BK. Quantity shipped is not relevant at all to notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The massive amounts of publicity each book has gotten is what makes it meet WP:BK. Spend 2 minutes with Google sometime. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, prove each and every books notability per WP:BK, and that does not include links to fansites, publicist statements, etc. but significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources for every last book in the list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Part of a very popular series of books. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is irrelevant. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Researching the sheer number of books listed in this AfD may have required me to open more browser tabs than is good for my sanity, but that didn't stop me from trying. And I turned up quite a bit of stuff in the end:
  Multiple books Firstly, there's all of the sources that cover two or more of the books in the series. This NYTimes article uses #2 and #4 as specific examples of the series, this Publishers Weekly article says that #2 and #3 were nominated for Quill Awards, and this TeenReads page has separate reviews of every book in the series. So that's at least a tally of one source for every volume. As for sources that cover only a single book? Well...
  #2 - Best Friends for Never: NYT bestseller, PW bestseller, BookLoons review, Virginian Pilot review, Romantic Times review
  #3 - Revenge of the Wannabes: NYT bestseller, PW bestseller, School Library Journal review, BookLoons review, New England Reading Association Journal review, MyShelf review
  #4 - Invasion of the Boy Snatchers: NYT bestseller, Kliatt review, BookLoons review, MyShelf review, DiscoveryJourney review
  #5 - The Pretty Committee Strikes Back: NYT bestseller, TIME review
  #6 - Dial L For Loser: NYT bestseller, TeensReadToo review, CurledUpKids review, MyShelf review
  #7 - It's Not Easy Being Mean: NYT bestseller, USA Today bestseller, TeensReadToo review, The Daily Orange review
  #8 - Sealed With A Diss: NYT bestseller, TeensReadToo review, Romantic Times review
  #9 - Bratfest at Tiffany's: NYT bestseller, TeensReadToo review, Pittsburgh City Paper review
So each and every one of these books is covered by "multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources" and therefore passes WP:BK. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all those, only a handful are NOT specialist listings. Teen sites do not count, as per WP:BK. Being a NY Times bestseller is also not an indication of notability per WP:BK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no, being a bestseller is not an indication of notability, but people do tend to like to know if something is a bestseller, and even WP:N admits that notability and popularity "may positively correlate". It is part of a picture of the overall impact of a book (and can certainly be used to help build an article).

Secondly, I'm confused by your term "specialist listings". (Mainly because I'm struggling to work out which piece of policy or guideline you're trying to draw on, I think.) Could you possibly elaborate? Assuming that you're referring to the fact that not all of these sources are mainstream magazines/newspapers... They don't all have to be. WP:BK only says "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." And the phrase "general audience" currently has a ^[clarify] next to it! (The discussion on the talk page even seems to be moving towards removing the phrase altogether, so...)

Also, if you're asserting that sites aimed at teens don't count - well, I see nothing in WP:RS that says sources must be designed for adults, just that they must be reliable. If you're asserting that the two particular sites I've referenced with "Teen" in their name don't count, I would have to say that I disagree. They are not the blogs of one individual; they have teams of people working on them - they have editorial control.

In any case, these sources are just the ones that I found first, after a short search for each book. I'm sure there are others out there. In fact I may well go and find them... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General audience meaning not the specific audience the books are targetted at, AKA teens. I didn't say they are not RS, but they do not count towards notability. Interesting on the clarify, it seems to be relatively new. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Nominator admits that "The series may be notable" and then asserts "but that does not automatically make every in said series notable". I could not disagree more. The series is a sum of its parts. I can't see synergy here. Dems on the move (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's blatantly wrong. If that were the case, every last episode of every last television would also have articles because they are "the sum of the parts" but they are not. They MUST meet notability on their own. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong analogy. I'm not claiming that each chapter needs a Wikipedia article. Lets take The Colbert Report as an example. The anchor, Stephen Colbert has his own article, then there is the articles List of The Colbert Report episodes broken down by years, Recurring segments on The Colbert Report, and special features such as Better Know a District, Truthiness, and Wikiality. Of course, don't forget the template {{The Colbert Report}}. Dems on the move (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my analogy is correct. Your's isn't very good, comparing a mass produced teenage fiction series to a non-fiction, multi-award winning television series, and both of which fall under very different notability guidelines. WP:BK exists to ensure we do not have articles on every little mass market book in the world. These books have a "list" in the form of The Clique (series), so these are all individual "episodes." And no offense, but having a template doesn't mean jack. They are a dime a dozen and take only seconds to make. Lots of unnotable stuff have been shoved in templates before, then eventually deleted or merged, followed by their templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Clique series. Short plot summaries can be placed on the main series page, along with a critical reception section for the series as a whole (much more useful than the alternative, having very short sections on each book). There isn't enough to justify an article for each book separately; I agree with Collectonian wholeheartedly. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that each article has a pretty lengthy plot description. Dems on the move (talk) 19:33, 11 September 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.