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 delete. The overall consensus seems to conclude that there simply has not been enough reliable-source coverage to warrant an article at this time. The various online reviews do not meet WP:RS, leading to the article as a whole failing all criteria of WP:BK. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (mini series)[edit]

This article about a series of books does not indicate how the subject is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. The only references given are to the publisher's website and various booksellers. I've searched for reviews or mentions in reliable sources, but am unable to find anything. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has a detailed reference section and is notable due to the five or six reviews that are linked to via the reference section. I believe that the article meets the criteria that Wikipedia presents and therefore should not be deleted. If there is one or two major problems with the page that you would like to point out, please do and I will attempt to sort these out. The series has been noted as one of the better erotic series and therefore I think it should be noted on Wikipedia. Further development should occur to the article if left 'un-deleted'. Dogman29 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — Dogman29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:BK. The only semi-substantive sources cited are nonindependent (the publisher's site), sites selling the books, and customer reviews at the foregoing. I can find no reliable sources discussing any of the works treated here. (Note: An article on this topic was prodded and deleted last year.) Deor (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News comes up with nothing for any of the book titles: [1]. Any notable book published in the current millennium in the UK would certainly have some reviews in publications indexed by Google News. Worldcat lists a combined grand total of five library holdings in their home country for the four books: [2][3][4][5]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A good article in many ways. It has many references in both the specific and general sections which do link to websites. Reviews on independent websites are linked to (there are around five/six) on Amazon/the publisher's website. These shouldn't be ignored as they are still reviews. The books are listed on sites such as Worldcat so why shouldn't they be listed on Wikipedia? I believe that this article is perfectly legit and therefore should remain on the encyclopedia. Deleting such an article would be ridiculous as it is a referenced article that looks tidy and is a credit to the site. Do not delete.E-mailed Monkey (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that three of the four "Keep" comments above have used the term "valid" in reference to the article under discussion. One of the comments comes from an IP and another from a single-purpose account. This is very interesting. If there is sockpuppeting occurring here please keep in mind that this will be taken into consideration when the closing decision is made. (A check-user can be performed to determine whether edits are likely made by the same individual under different names.) ... discospinster _talk 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the word "valid" has disappeared, and one of the "Keep" comments has been removed. ... discospinster _talk 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two have been removed, actually—the edit summary of the second removal being a tacit admission of double !voting. Deor (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can we possibly review the page as it currently stands. It has links to around eleven reviews between Google, Amazon and the publisher's website. Should we all review the article as it is today - at this moment in time? Rather than what was put up to be deleted. E-mailed Monkey (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BK specifies that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" (my emphasis). User reviews at sites like Amazon and Google Books are not sufficient to establish notability; nor are they reliable sources for the content in articles. Deor (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are probably some real reviews to be found by now, but until someone finds them, I do not see how we can have this article. DGG (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delete then - If we are all so convinced that this article should be deleted then you might as well. It doesn't meet guidelines and therefore you're right. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogman29 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IP addresses don't necessarily represent an individual. In a democracy everyone has a vote. I concede disco spinster. It is corporeal and sacrilegious. PF. E-mailed Monkey (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2009 (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.