Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cat Master

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 deleted (CSD G5) by Kww. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat Master

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

Appears to fail WP:BK, as I'm not finding evidence of reviews or attention in reliable mainstream sources or evidence that the "award" cited is at all notable. The creation of this article appears to be a response to the AfD for Bonnie Pemberton, of which this article is a verbatim copy except for the necessary changes in the first paragraph. Deor (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book is notable because it is an independently reviewed and award-winning book. "The Cat Master" novel meets the criteria found at WP:NBOOK, which is that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This article meets the minimum requirements for inclusion and that is all that it needs to be kept. Inniverse (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the parts about "reliable sources" and "at least some of these works serving a general audience". Deor (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The below listed multiple book reviews (already listed in the article) are all reliable and independent from the author, and all serve a general audience:
Felinexpress.com
A Year of Reading
St. Charles Public Library
Powell’s Books: Staff Pick Inniverse (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I already pointed out at the Bonnie Pemberton AfD, the "independent reviews" that you are using are 1) a cat website 2) a blog 3) a library (which is not even a review - it is just a short sysopsis of the book amongst a list of cat themed books for children) and 4) a bookstore. If this is the is really all there is, then notability is most definitely not established. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cats aren't automatically notable? This is the internet. Otherwise, see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Pemberton.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: felinexpress.com? you can't make this crap up!!!.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonnie Pemberton - we don't need to have articles on the book and its author, as neither is notable independent of the other, and I'd say the author's article is the one to keep. (To clarify, I think the book is notable, but should be covered as part of the author's article rather than separately.) Robofish (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as WP:CSD#G5. Creator was a sock of User:Azviz. I still haven't figured out AFD closing yet, so I'll let someone else take care of that part.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 6 June 2010 (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.