Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow in the Mirror

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow in the Mirror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Ultimately, this novel fails WP:NBOOK because I was unable to find multiple reviews of the book. The only review I could find is here and here, but it appears that the second review is a blog, and thus fails WP:NBOOK, so if somebody is able to find a second review I will withdraw the nomination, but it seems unlikely. The novel is really obscure—for example, it only has one review on goodreads. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is two sentences, and not exactly something that holds much weight. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : I can only find the Publisher's Weekly review; there's a book by another author from India with the same title, it comes up quite a bit actually. Regardless, we don't have enough for notability with only one review. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not seen that the nom found one other article reviewing the book; I have found this [1].Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not too confident about this counting as a review. Is this a review or a plot summary for an online store? -1ctinus📝🗨 11:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 1ctinus. I wouldn't really count the PW article as a review--more like a publication announcement--given that it merely provides a summary of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep With the reviews given by the nom and the PW review above, we have two reviews, barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m asking if the second review actually counts towards WP:NBOOK, though. That website appears to me as a blog. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @1ctinus: I would say it does count. It was originally in the print edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which WP:NBOOK#1 allows as a "newspaper article." See newspapers.com here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m referring to the curled up.com one. my apologies. The Pittsburgh one definitely counts. That’s my mistake. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with The Deceivers (Aiello novel) and The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel). The author Robert Aiello has been redlinked since the 2000s, barely notable, high risk of eternal stubbiness and walled WP:ORPHAN. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are at least two reviews. That is our standard. It meets it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Carlin, Karen (2001-08-02). "Suspicions Abound in Two Mysteries". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.

     The review notes: "Aiello, a retired Pittsburgh public relations executive, keeps things engrossing and moving at a fast pace, although sometimes you wish parts of the plot had more meat to them. The tale doesn't offer much flavor of Pittsburgh aside from the dropping of names of streets, neighborhoods and locations. But look beyond the cheesy cover, and you'll find an interesting hero in an adequate suspense story."

  2. Behe, Regis (2001-07-22). "Robert Aiello offers sequel to 'Deceivers'". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.

     The article notes: "But it's Aiello's new characters that provide the tension in 'Shadow in the Mirror,' particularly identical twins Lorraine and Lona Everett. The former is an ex-Rockette and past love interest of Montgomery. The latter, while physically identical to her sister, provides a sharp counterpoint in demeanor and motivation. It's Lona's unfettered ambition and greed that drive the storyline."

  3. "Shadow in the Mirror". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.

     The review provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "When the friend unexpectedly kills himself, his identical twin daughters (one of whom is Grant's ex) behave strangely, and an old enemy of Grant's gets in the way of investigating his friend's mysterious death when he tries to kill Grant."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shadow in the Mirror to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given the second source Cunard found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (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.