Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood and Sunlight: A Maryland Vampire Story

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Sunlight: A Maryland Vampire Story

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

Delete. Non-notable book from a non-notable author. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
500 Facebook followers for this wiki entry alone. Citations are from nationally recognized sources. Author has major writing creditsvandvthe book is recognized in the vampire community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.62.251 (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search and found no coverage for this book other than the two sources linked in the article. Two local sources covering an author are not enough to show notability. We'd need far more to show notability for this book and/or the author. As far as popularity goes, popularity alone does not give notability. It just makes it more likely that sources would be found. That said, 500 followers on Facebook really isn't that much when you get down to it and the author has the same issues of notability as the book does. Most of what is out there are as far as sources go for the author and the book are primary sources, merchant sites, junk hits that come up with any search, and non-reliable blog entries. Neither the author nor the book have any notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned and the book being "recognized" in the vampire community does not mean that it's notable. I understand that it's harder for small press books to get the attention that larger and more well-known series in the same genre have gotten, but they're still held to the same standards of WP:NBOOK and WP:AUTHOR, which neither passes. Now as far as the mention of the Bram Stoker Award goes, being on the initial ballot means absolutely nothing. Anyone that's a member of the HWA can nominate a book and membership in the HWA is not that hard to get. The initial ballot is comprised of anything that is recommended by the HWA members and is quite large. Authors can also freely submit their work to be considered. Even if being on the ballot was akin to being nominated for an Oscar, the book didn't win and notable awards only extend notability if they win. This book just isn't notable enough to pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::I wouldn't consider the Baltimore Sun just a local source. Reviews also appear in Hellnotes, a Stoker Award winning publication. This is a small press book which has received as much exposure as many 'large press' releases. It's a narrow view in the least if we limit ourselves to books released by the 'big 6'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Baltimore Sun is a major paper, it's sort of a local interest story in that the book takes place in Elliott City, which is close to Baltimore. That doesn't mean that the article doesn't count towards notability, just explaining why I stated that it was a local piece. In any case, an article by the Baltimore Sun and an article by the Patch. The problem with the Patch articles in general is that people can submit their own articles to the Patch and get it posted, so for the most part it is sometimes dodgy as a source. This particular source appears to be an opinion blog, but I wasn't entirely going to point that out. As for Hellnotes, I'll run that through the reliable sources noticeboard, but I'll warn you that winning an award doesn't automatically mean that it's reliable. It does make it more likely but not automatically so. Even if it is, three sources are far too light to show that the book absolutely passes WP:NBOOK. I just don't see this passing notability guidelines. The thing that puts smaller press books at a disadvantage is that most times the only coverage they get usually comes from their local papers or from reviews that they have solicited from blogs or sites that may or may not be considered RS. This means that a lot of books don't pass notability guidelines. In all fairness, most of the books by the "Big Six" also don't pass notability guidelines. I'd go so far as to say that at least 80-90% of the mainstream titles out there will never pass notability guidelines, nor do their authors. It's not snobbery, just that the bigger publishers usually have more money, ties, and resources to publicize their books and as such, get more chatter.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTYET. For now, insufficient substantial sources exist to establish notability. My own Google searches turned up nothing promising. I agree that the Baltimore Sun review is more like local coverage. Perhaps in the future, this recently published book may gain enough serious coverage to warrant an article, but now is not the time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly shows shows unreliable clues or information regarding to the article, most of the times a variety of blogs are usually not to be trusted due to their opinionated facts, it does seem more local and hopefully increase the publishing to become notable, otherwise, it is not enough notable, and some of the sources are to more opportunity in opinions to a blog than a document or article.--GoShow (............................) 05:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would think that intangibles should factor into consideration. The article itself is obviously referenced enough that its deletion would be noticed. The criteria for 'notability' should include, if it does not already, general popularity of which this novel certainly qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.31 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You thought wrong. We absolutely need substantial independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. Ain't no way around that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:28, 24 September 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.