Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Crazy Beautiful Life (book)

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. There was a substantial shift of views to a consensus for keep during the debate, with sources found during the discussion rising, in the view of participants, to WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Crazy Beautiful Life (book)

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

Not notable still-to-be-published book [autobiography] by American singer Ke$ha. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kesha. Changing vote to neutral, see below comment. Books can sometimes gain notability before they are published or even if they are never officially published, but this is not the case in this scenario. All that we have for this book are a few 1-2 paragraph articles about the book, most of which mention the autobiography in passing and do not really focus much on the book. The book releases on the 20th and while that's not too far off, we can't automatically assume that it'll receive more press. Luckily for this article, the book will release during the week duration of this AfD, so if there are more sources after its released I will gladly change my vote to keep. Until then, it should just redirect to Kesha's article. Books don't gain automatic notability by being written by a notable person. It's actually fairly common for big names to release autobiographies that never truly meet notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stuff to source what I do have in the article, which isn't much. I just want to point out to anyone coming in that while some articles are longer than others, the articles are rather short and all are based off of one press release, so no depth of coverage here. If I can find at least 1-2 reviews I'm willing to change my mind, but so far I'm pretty much just gussying this up for a redirect so that if/when it gets coverage, we will have some material there for someone to work with.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added still more, but so far everything is brief and somewhat trivial in nature. This is so close to passing WP:NBOOK that I'm almost tempted to say that it does. Almost. If I can find one article that isn't based off of the press release and gives in-depth coverage, I'd say that it'd pass. I've pared down a lot of the sources since I figure that the previous state of the article is a little misleading when you look at the sources. I've left the following: (for any newcomers to the AfD)

[1] This is a brief article that talks about the photographer. It's fairly brief, so much so that I'd consider it a trivial source.
[2] This is another brief article that talks about their favorite quotes from the book. If it was more of a review I'd count it towards notability.
[3] A nice article based off of the PR. It's lengthier than some of the others, but almost half of it is quoting the PR verbatim so that's a little problematic.
[4] This is an actual article where MTV interviewed Kesha. She pretty much spouts off the same stuff put into the PR, but it's technically its own interview. Considering that sometimes these interviews are done weeks or months before it's put onto the website, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the PR was based off of. I'm counting it towards notability
[5] It's strange, but it is a review of sorts and counts towards notability.

In any case, the last two are the ones that I absolutely consider to give notability. The rest? They're close and might be arguable, but they're shaky enough where you can also argue that they don't give notability. I just wanted to elaborate on the sources since I'm so on the border with this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kesha per Tokyogirl's explicit answer. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - due to recent edits, notability seems to have been established with a steady incline of notable media sources reporting on it, with reasonable suspicion that more will emerge, given the notability of the songstress herself. Thus, I rescind my earlier position and change it to Keep. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue too hard if it is kept, I admit. I think I might change my vote to neutral since I'm so on the border here and I'll agree with whatever the end consensus is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Kesha~~ Keep - as suggested above. I think Tokyogirl sums it up nicely. ~~It might (one day) be notable enough for its own article but it isn't now.~~ Stalwart111 05:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work done and the sources found are enough for me to change my !vote and I have done so. Stalwart111 12:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 07:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm not entirely happy with the current sources and I feel that this could be argued either way for notability, given that some of the sources are based off the same PR and there's only one actual in-depth review of the book. But then again, the current sources are more than the previous ones that were 90% PR re-quoting. I'm willing to accept either outcome, whether it's redirect or keep. At this point we really only need one more in-depth source for me to be able to say that it would pass notability guidelines without debate, but the current sources could be definitely argued to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found two more articles about the book. One is sort of dubious, but the other is by Spin Magazine. It's brief, but just lengthy enough that I'm going to count it. This barely squeaks by notability guidelines, but there's enough now to keep me happy for the meantime.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 04:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kesha. Any notability is inherited, so it would be better as a section in Kesha's page. 1292simon (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The book itself has actually gotten a few reviews, which are usually enough in themselves to warrant a keep but this has enough sources about the book itself that it would merit an entry of its own. Notability isn't inherited, but you're never going to find an article about the book that won't talk about Kesha's other activities to some point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per independent reviews of the book/etc. —Theo polisme 13:59, 17 December 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.