Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Days

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Days (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)

Previously nominated (resulting in consensus to redirect back to series article). Can't find coverage in non-trivial sources to meet WP:NBOOK. No awards, motion pictures, or use for instruction. Probably should be Redirect again. Mikeblas (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A quick Google search yielded a bit of coverage in reliable sources that didn't exist during the previous AfD[1][2] as well as a few other sources that may or may not be superb sources, I'm honestly not sure, but they also didn't exist when the previous AfD happened.[3][4] However, even with just the Huffington Post and Tor these sources appear to show enough notability to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NBOOK. - Aoidh (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Book regularly published in 2012. [5] Ngebendi (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC) It would appear that Mikeblas' request for deletion/redirecting is based on the existance of a previous request put up on 2011, and rendered obsolete by the book's publication in 2012, regularly mentioned in the article. If this is correct, and no ulterior motive which I failed to notice exists, there is no case at all; I've therefore removed the AofD template from the article. I'm not familiar with the notability issues invoked, nor how they should applied to the question at hand, but I bought both Cold Days and the following book, Skin Game, from Amazon, and I'm sure one can find it listed on any on- and off-line retailer one cares to consult; this should be enough to ensure notability. Ngebendi (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon will happily sell you self-published books, so that doesn't mean anything. This isn't one, though; it hit #1 on the NYT bestseller list. Cryptic 00:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It meets the first criteria of WP:NSOFT, but unless I'm seriously misreading WP:NBOOK, being #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list for hardcover fiction doesn't indicate any type of notability for a book? That seems odd, since something similar is the case for songs. - Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope; my activation of the AfD process is based on the current article's state. In the AfD process, it's customary to enumerate previous AfDs for the article nominated. In fact, that happens automatically; but it didn't happen automatically in this case because this article was renamed since the last AfD. Presently, the article contains no claim of notability, and therefore references to support its notability. In my searching, I didn't find any reviews or references to help establish notability for the title. The ability to buy something from an online retailer doesn't make that product notable; the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (books) do. You might familiarize yourself with them so that you can apply the criteria to articles you edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll do that, Mikeblas - now that more details are brought into the discussion, your activation of AfD makes some sense. However, please take into account that Cold Days is one of 16 published books, its deletion, if performed, would prompt someone to recreate the article to fill the gap. Next time, please address the issue so that people motivated by this kind of reasons would react more appropriately. Ngebendi (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The way I understand it now, the problem might have been the lack of links, such as reviews, bestseller lists and such, unrelated to the author, publishers and online retailers, which has prompted MikeBias to suspect lack of notability and tag the article for deletion. If so, it would have been more appropriate to use one of the source-requestiong templates, particularly since none of the other 14 Dresden Files have been challenged this way, though they also might require a working over like the one Tokyogirl79 has given this. Am I wrong? Ngebendi (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know if that comment was directed at me as it seems Mikeblas, but a quick Google search very quickly showed that this article meets WP:NBOOKS, which given that you're asking others to "familiarize themselves with", is something you should have known. Saying that your "activation of the AfD process is based on the current article's state" shows a pretty critical flaw in the way you nominate articles for AfD. Follow WP:BEFORE and you would have quickly seen that this subject meets WP:NBOOK; the current state of the article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject. Given the time between this and the previous AfD you created, I think you need to slow down and follow WP:BEFORE before trying to pump out all of these AfDs. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A book can exist but that doesn't really do anything for notability, nor does the NYT bestselling status. There's been a little talk about trying to say that being #1 on the NYT list can give some notability, but so far nobody has really gone for that for several reasons, most of which come from the fact that publishers can and do manipulate things in order to achieve a higher ranking on the charts. One guy even wrote an article about getting on the NYT list, although I can't recall his name. Because of stuff like that, the bestselling status is more of a trivial thing when it comes down to it. I did, however, find multiple reviews and mentions of the book in various articles and I added enough sources to where it should pass notability guidelines now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily Keep This is a notable book and part of a notable book series. Its critical commentary in the public domain and its presence on bestseller lists makes this a very clear and simple case.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The argument that the deletion of a book article eighteen months before publication has any kind of weight after the book has been published and topped best seller lists is preposterous, laughable, and palpably absurd. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The book is a bestseller, part of a bestselling series that has been adapted to television, optioned a second time, and which has its own distinct fandom. Arguments denigrating its notability are spurious at best, and smack of 'nerd rage' against a disliked franchise. The best argument thus presented was that it is possible for publishers to manipulate various bestselling lists, but even this falls flat, as successful manipulation garners coverage and attention, and thus notability. If not, no publisher would bother engaging in such manipulations. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 4 August 2014 (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.