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. — Joseph Fox 23:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Mountain[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:BK. Based on a GNews archives search it seems unlikely that reliable sources will be found to address notability in the near future as though there is evidence of reviews, I find no appropriate awards or an explanation of the significant contribution expected. Fæ (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a central book in a major (arguably the major) series from a highly notable children's author. The only reason it's hard to find reviews from noteworthy sources is that there are so many reviews out there that it's a Herculean task to sift through them all. Yunshui (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't make him notable, does it?Curb Chain (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple google search brings up truck loads of reviews. Nom seems aware of this so I don't know why it was brought to afd. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I mentioned evidence of reviews in the nomination, these need to be "non-trivial" to meet the BK criteria. Perhaps you could select one significant review of this book in a quality reliable source as a counter example for this AfD? My search only found tangential mentions in reviews of the author's works in general, or for reviews of the series that might justify the notability of the series but not this particular work. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like user Yunishi said - I don't fancy sorting through thousands of crumby reviews to find a good one, and there are literaly thousands of reviews, sorry. Szzuk (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are many reviews for this series. Couldn't we say the same thing about some series that don't have articles?Curb Chain (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The single source provided is not sufficient. No actual sources provided in the discussion above, and I was unable to see any quick evidence of meeting the general notability guideline. Bring some specific sources to the discussion, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author is not notable, the series is not notable, and if the series was notable, it would not make the author notable as notability is not inherited.Curb Chain (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale here may seem just to be stating that this book is not notable without giving a reason. Well, I can attest that many books part of series are not notable inthemselves, but the series may be. But it looks to mean like there is nothing this series, or book, for this matter, has that makes them unique. As we don't have an article of every book of every series, and we don't have an article of every series of literature, I see no assertion of notability, and see no reason why this book should get it's own article (the series is outside the scope of this discussion).Curb Chain (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very tired of this convo: Editorial reviews here Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure you are. You may find reading through the criteria and guidance at WP:BK will reduce your frustration and help you understand why this article still presents a notability problem. Considering you are linking to reviews on Barnes & Noble, you may find the section "Online bookstores" particularly helpful, it mentions that site specifically. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - Searched World Cat and is present in 1573 libraries, also is recorder in the Library of Congress thereby meeting the WP:NBOOK threshold standards. I believe it exceeds per what user Szzuk has said. MadCow257 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the second paragraph of "Threshold standards" in NBOOK, you appear to be making the assumption that meeting the exclusionary criteria implies the book is notable and the guidelines make it explicitly clear that this is not the case. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had read that, but hadn't specifically looked into the reviews when I posted. Upon some research, all of the relevant ones that I can find are listed at http://www.darrenshan.com/reviews/list/vampire-mountain/. I am not familiar much with literature, but they all appear to be of Barnes & Noble style and are not of the desired level of quality. I will not vote, but comment that the other works in this series should also be considered for deletion if this one is deleted: The Saga of Darren Shan MadCow257 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Meets BOOk. Reviews are what show notability of books. Being present in over 1000 libraries is also an implict criterion for it, because libraries buy books on the basis of reviews. However, the possibility of merging books in a series is always present, and is often a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]

Actually, many books are donated to libraries, and requested by citizens.Curb Chain (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, many are. So a few scattered library holding do not mean much. In fact, a few scattered holdings in the area where the author lives generally do indicate a donation by the author. And of course the public asks for books--books they know about. Libraries try very hard to have the books in place before that. I would not have even made this argument for say 1000 holdings for this type of book, but such a large number is significant. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 22 August 2011 (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.