Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Fire (Miscione novel)

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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Fire (Miscione novel)

[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)

Fails WP:NPLOT and WP:NBOOK, couldn't find any reviews or other indications of notability in any reliable sources Avilich (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added critical reviews and sources from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Kirkus Reviews. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT #1. DanCherek (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all 'trivial' as per NBOOK, their reviews are often short and indiscriminate and Kirkus does paid reviewing. Avilich (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Paid reviews are published by Kirkus Indie Reviews. Those are specified on the review page under the "Review Program" field, such as this one. The review of Angel Fire was not a paid review. DanCherek (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's unlikely that the author paid Kirkus to publish a review that calls the book "predictable" and "flatly written". pburka (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent reviews in reliable sources. Easy WP:NBOOK pass. pburka (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like PW and KR put out massive numbers of short book reviews every year at the behest of library book-buyers and the publishing industry, they alone are not adequate for establishing notability in an encyclopedia. Avilich (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's extensive AfD precedent contradicting you. Even with those "massive numbers" most books aren't reviewed by a single influential source like PW, LJ or KR, let alone all three. pburka (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews ie. three of them, although afd is not an article improvement forum, this is another one that has been improved to reflect its wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2021 (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.