Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Semester in the Life of a Garbage Bag

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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Semester in the Life of a Garbage Bag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK: I am unable to find any non-trivial reviews of the novel. The article has been tagged with {{Notability}} for 5 years and the none of the three references show any notable coverage. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gordon Korman obviously as I wouldn't see any actual need to delete but the best sourcing I found was this, no significant or considerable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria - by a long shot. Unfortunately, many others of this author's books have pages, and I am assuming that few if any of them arise to notability by the criteria listed. I looked at a few, and none had sufficient references: Son_of_Interflux, Don't_Care_High, The_Twinkie_Squad. The latter has been marked for lack of references since 2008. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found several reviews. The Buffalo Public Library has transcriptions of reviews from Publishers Weekly and Booklist Review. (The book came out in 1987, slightly pre-everything-is-on-the-internet-now.) Then there are non-trivial reviews at AllReaders.com, marveloustales.com, tvtropes.org and scholastic.ca. That should suffice to pass WP:NBOOK. Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Tvtropes is a wiki and far from a reliable source. Marveloustales just looks like a blog. The other reviews look good though; thank you for finding them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a strange feeling about tvtropes, better strike it then. Blogs may be accepted for reviews if they are independent, and the review is non-trivial. Anyway, in this case, it's just one more. Kraxler (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reviews found by Kraxler (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (books).

  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We've been around this before, but Booklist and PW are, like Kirkus, review journals that review many thousands of books every year. The books are submitted by the publishers and there are long standing relationships with many publishers. This means that they will review every book published by certain established publishers. Reviews are short (PW reviews average around 200 words), and primarily give a synopsis of the book's story. While those reviews are worth mentioning, using them to establish notability is not, IMO, valid. LaMona (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2015 (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.