Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

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 Snowball keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails the notability guideline for books. A review in the republican leaning Washington Times and a middling review in Politico does not suffice. There are hundreds of books slapped together every election year, this is merely one of them. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy / snowball keep (from article creator) - absurd nomination, suggest withdrawal. Satisfies formal criterion #1 by a mile. Nominator should contemplate WP:BEFORE. It was not created in response to the vice presidency, and in fact the story of how a minor political biography was blown up into the "definitive" book on a vice presidential candidate is an interesting part of the story that many papers have picked up on. #3 on NY Times besteller list, by the way.Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The washington times called it the definitive biography--I'm not prepared to accept that as fact. Notability isn't inherited from the subject of the book. There are thousands of non-notable biographies of Shakespeare, even though he is clearly notable. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a google search while I expand the article. You gave it 19 minutes. Moreover, Washington Times is a reliable source, despite its conservative leanings. But there are plenty more sources. The book is covered in most major newspapers.Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article has received ample coverage from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. WP:WHATABOUTX is never a valid argument for deletion, and is amply rebutted by staying on The New York Times best seller list for six weeks. Notability has nothing to do with getting good reviews, nor is a 19-minute drive by AfD appropriate given what was in the article and the article's subject. I will be happy to create an article for every one of the Shakespeare bios that satisfies this criterion. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The deletion argument isn't WAX. I'm arguing that the subject of the biography doesn't have any impact on the notability of the book. WP:NB sets a high bar for books on wikipedia. That's the basis for the nomination. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See "There are thousands of non-notable biographies of Shakespeare, even though he is clearly notable." The bar on notability has been met. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of coverage already in the article (not including [1]), peaked at #3 on the bestseller list. Clearly notable. Hut 8.5 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A variety of sources/coverage is already in the article and it is high on the best seller list. Worth keeping. Brothejr (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note: Wikipedia, as an international resource giving encyclopedic coverage to so many genres of literature, should not entirely discount sources merely for their being sectarian/partisan/&cetera. Just as New York Yiddish-language newspapers (such as Der Blatt) would reasonably be relied upon as a reliable source for English translations of notable books in Yiddish -- or Catholic magazines, for notable books about Catholicism; Mother Jones, for notable books dealing with the Labor movement; &cetera -- wouldn't it seem that National Review, Hugh Hewitt, The Washington Times, &cetera, likewise might be relied upon as pointing to the more notable books on personalities within American conservatism?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep book has been on the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks and been reviewed by several notable publications. RMHED (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have added a few sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (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.