Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsocial Amigos (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsocial Amigos

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

Non notable book by non notable author. The author is likely the article creator. Three single purpose accounts and an IP were used in creating and editing this article. References are first party and non-reliable. First AfD was cut short by speedy deletion. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable book. Agree with nominator. jni&;^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
should not be deleted as the book has notability. references and citations are valid enough. Not agreed with the nominator. Can be considered once. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The author is awarded for the book, the book has ranked amongst top 5 in Goodreads list of books having rape as as a theme. References are valid and substantial enough to prove the book's notability. Can be considered for undo the deletion and closing the discussion. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Kindly Remove the afd tag as soon as possible as the article has relevant reliability and is notable. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC) > — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reasons for deletion are baseless and cannot be entertained Author is a notable author. Check references. The allegation of self creation of the article by the author himself cannot be proved so is irrelevant. References are reliable enough and have notability. Check them. Don't delete the article. Consider undo the AfD tagging respectively. The removing of article can harm the goodwill of an established author and notable book. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Article has five references, four of which come from two sources. Don't believe this passes notability guidelines. st170e^talk16:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete .Out of 5 two references come from similar sources. Two different citations can be donr from a singe website as two different references. Rest are individual sources. There are many other such articles with similar kind of references live on wikipedia (some are even worse) so why this article should be deleted? This article should remain live and the AfD tag should be duly removed. 223.176.20.114 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — 223.176.20.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and salt - the sources include a goodreads review written by the author himself and a non-WP:RS personal blog. Effectively un-sourced. Nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The sources provided aren't "different sources from the same site" - they are the same sources listed more than once. The ISBN of the book isn't a "source" and the goodreads list? - "Anyone can add books to this list." - more self-publishing. We would need entirely new sources that constitute "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources" to even begin considering this for inclusion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable book. Self-published sources do not confer notability. Reyk _YO! 01:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dont delete as none of the reviews are written by the author himself. Kindly get your facts right. And yes though anyone can add books to listopia but its ranking depends on readers' votes and book's creditibility. So it isn't self published and hence confers notability. I hope your claims are invalid and book should be considered for article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.167.107.139 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

Wikipedia: Unsocial Amigos is a contemporary romance fiction novel, by Aikat

Goodreads: Unsocial Amigos by Aikat (Goodreads Author). Published April 9th 2014 by Aikat

Obviously written by "Aikat", the author. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not enough for listing the book as not notable. The book has been ranked on a worldwide booklist in the top 5 charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.167.107.188 (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've unbolded the comments by User:Tookmeaway after his first "keep" argument since they could be construed as additional keep votes. Tookmeaway, it would be better if you were to preface each new statement with "Comment" like I've put before my statement or perhaps "Response", if you're responding to another person's comment. Also, I want to state that while I am using the term "vote", AfDs are not decided based upon which side has more people commenting (keep or delete) but upon the strength of the arguments themselves and how they fit within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. As far as the other arguments, I'm going to post another response below: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads, Listopia, and other similar sites are considered to be self-published sources as anyone can post a review and the reviews undergo no editorial oversight. While yes, things posted by the author would be seen as WP:PRIMARY sources and thus be unusable for notability purposes, his not writing the review or article does not mean that they would automatically be considered something that would be usable per Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. (WP:RS) An example of a reliable source would be an article or review by the Times of India or the New York Times. Now when it comes to other articles on Wikipedia, the existence of other articles does not mean that every article should be kept. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Sometimes those articles pass notability guidelines in ways that this article may not, but in most cases it is just that those articles haven't been found and deleted yet. As far as the book's popularity goes, popularity does not always mean that something is notable. (WP:ITSPOPULAR). Being popular does make it more likely that there will be usable reliable sources, but it is never a guarantee. In the case of book rankings, we cannot accept book rankings as proof of notability because there have been multiple cases in the past where people have manipulated book rankings (and rankings in general) to gain attention. There was even a case where someone manipulated the New York Times Bestselling List in order to gain attention, which is perhaps one of the most well known (and up to that point most respected) rankings list in the United States. Now I'm not saying that anyone manipulated the lists for this book, but this is why we cannot use rankings anywhere to really show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. I really hate to say this, but if any of the people editing the Wikipedia article or this AfD are the same person, please be aware that while your intentions may be good, creating multiple accounts to appear like separate people is seen as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and is against Wikipedia's policies. There are ways to check for this, so if any of you have done this or are debating about doing this, please don't. If you were asked to come here to sway the argument, it would be good to state that you were asked to come here. This could be seen as WP:CANVASsing or WP:MEAT if you are not transparent about how you were asked to come to Wikipedia. I really, really don't want to sound like I am trying to WP:BITE the newbies, but I do want to stress upon you the importance of Wikipedia's rules. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goodreads.com is fine for this book. Notability for them doesn't mean notability for Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for Goodreads, all they require is that the book was announced in some form or fashion. I've seen people add information for books that never released, despite announcements on their websites and at publisher websites. The bar for additions to their database is so incredibly low that it's pretty much nonexistent- all you have to do is ask a librarian to add the book for you. (So basically I'm agreeing with you, but further explaining why a listing at Goodreads means little to nothing on here.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom a non-notable book and note that in the Previous AFD it was speedy Deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:55, 24 October 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.