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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little gypsy[edit]

Little gypsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Completely non-notable. A search on Google News turns up nothing related to this book.

While Goodreads does have a page exclusively dedicated to the book, the page itself is analagous to one of the standard blurbs listed on a book's back cover in order to entice an individual to read a book, and not much of a plot summary. This, I believe, does not satisfy the "Significant coverage" subsection of WP:GNG, because large amounts of original research would be required to create a reasonable article about a book. Nor does it meet reliability requirements, as the content is user-created and unverifiable to any reliable source with mechanisms of ensuring quality.

I doubt that there would be any derived notability (anyway not usable as a sole justification for inclusion), as the author of the book does not seem to be covered to any reasonable extent by any source, except The Guardian (where she is a columnist, thereby making it non-independent). The only other bio I found of the author, on Goodreads, was self-created.

For these reasons, the article should be deleted. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As with many books of this type, there are many blogs and small reviews by booksellers, but nothing that seems to pass WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see a few book reviews but not enough significance outside of those for me to consider it passing notability. Shadowjams (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A couple of items that can be found are a viewpoint article by the author in The Independent tagged in respect of her then-forthcoming book, and her appearance on a fairly high-profile BBC Radio 4 programme after publication to talk about her book. Both possibly PR-driven, but if so it is quite successful placement. Possibly worth seeking more to see whether a weight of pebbles builds a notable hill. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the two articles you found begin to amount to a hill. There are thousands of books published every year and most major houses will arrange at least the cursory coverage for them. That they're showing up isn't really significant... it's what they say, if they're independent, and if what independent sources say indicate notability that matters. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (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.