Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Witch Alone (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 keep. The keep arguments are not tremendously pursuasive, but there is certainly no consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Witch Alone

Plot summary of a book that appears to fail WP:BK; the article does not refer to any secondary sources. The "Keep" arguments in the last AfD (one year ago, closed as "no consensus") cannot stand by today's version of WP:BK. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BK states that it should at least have an ISBN number, which it does, so providing it's available at some libraries, we should keep it. It's just that that needs proving. Lra drama 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood WP:BK#Threshold standards. Having an ISBN number is necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. It's obviously out of scope for Wikipedia to include articles on all books with ISBN numbers, and also on all books available in libraries (both criteria are fulfilled by more books than Wikipedia has articles today). What we need would be substantial coverage in secondary sources. --B. Wolterding 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Google brings up a fair few hits. What do you think of that? Although, in support of your views, this is the only book by the author that has its own article it seems. But going off that amount of links from a search engine, I'd say it could be noteable. Lra drama 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Put quotation marks around the booktitle, subtract out amazon, blogspot, and wordpress, and you're left with 699 GHits. [1] cab 10:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some of them are not for the book too, but are unrelated articles about Wiccan singletons, and an unrelated forum for solitary practitioners.Merkinsmum 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This book has been around for decades and is a well-known book amonst those involved in paganism (which is supposedly quite a few people nowadays.) It is among the first books people are advised to read, so most pagans will have read it. Maybe there are less sources because it first came out some years ago? Or maybe any sources mentioning it are not usually accepted on wikipedia? If it's decided it's not noteable it could be merged/mentioned in the Marian Green article.Merkinsmum 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WorldCat shows 103 library holdings, which is relatively high for a book of this sort. DGG (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would that imply notability? (WP:BIG) --B. Wolterding 07:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as in no way it is non-notable. Book or any other object may seem non-notable to a person who is not familiar with its activity. But to the persons associated with this field may identify it as a notable one which happens here. So, I will go with a strong keep. Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from WP:BK: "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on attribution; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." If you do have reliable secondary sources that cover the subject, please post these here or add them to the article. If no sources exist, the book fails the inclusion criteria. --B. Wolterding 15:24, 29 September 2007 (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.