Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shatter Me

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. Any promotional aspects can be cleaned up outside of AFD. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shatter Me

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

This book is not notable in and of itself. Clearly promotional material disguised as a Wikipedia book entry. Nyanburger (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about it being strictly promotional material. The article has been contributed to by a number of editors over 2.5 years, and the original author wrote several other articles from scratch (including at least one book with a different author and publisher). I won't speak about the notability, as I'm unfamiliar with the guidelines, other than: obviously some people are interested in this book, so what's the harm in keeping it? It was receiving 150 views/day even before Lindsey Sterling's album by the same name. 194.94.44.220 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean. If it's down to whether or not it's promotional, I don't think that it's promotional enough to really warrant deleting on that reason alone- we can always clean up an article if it's salvageable, which this one appears to be since this wasn't really promotional as much as it was written with a fan-tone. As far as notability goes, I did see where the book got reviews from various sources, including the Horn Book Guide. There was also some coverage from EW, as well as in-depth coverage here, here, and here. It's not the strongest amount of sources, but it is enough to establish notability- especially since there does appear to have been more coverage. Of course, if anyone is willing I'd actually prefer that we have a page for the series as a whole as opposed to only the first book having an article: it's easier to prove notability for a series and this way we're not left with an article that only covers one book if it ends up that only the first entry has enough to merit its own page. I'd also say that the author may have received enough coverage to merit an entry of her own, as I've come across a lot of sources that mention her and the series, but focus predominantly on her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 31 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.