Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. Shortcuts WP:BKWP:BK WP:NBWP:NB WP:NBOOKWP:NBOOK...
Click to read more »meeting any criteria of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Delete This appears to not meet WP:NBOOK and does not seem to be...
Click to read more »Fails WP:NBOOK –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Delete per others and NBOOK. APerson (talk!) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) PROD contested without providing a reason. The subject fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I believe this book fails WP:NBOOK. Namely: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published...
Click to read more »appears to come down to whether WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG are met. There does not seem to be any claim of GNG being met, on NBOOK it's less clear as there seem to...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography. Has been...
Click to read more »was: Non notable self-published e-book from non notable author. Fails WP:NBOOK. Page is also clearly promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 15 August...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. No sigcov, no reviews, no awards. Do not believe that this author is sufficiently...
Click to read more »review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. NBOOK shown to be met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod was contested in 2017 and another editor attempted to PROD the article...
Click to read more »29 April 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK 5.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, notable author's work.--Cedix (talk)...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Not notable per WP:NBOOK and a lack of significant coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:51, 2 May...
Click to read more »disagreement here about the relative importance of WP:NBOOK vs. WP:GNG, and how literally NBOOK should be interpreted. If people still feel this should...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:PLOT and WP:NBOOK, couldn't find any review or other indication of notability in reliable...
Click to read more »and NBOOK. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Delete per WP:NBOOK. Article...
Click to read more »this title, though. Has some coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn...
Click to read more »April 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK 5 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Keep Meets criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK. Tagore is the first Asian...
Click to read more »Contested PROD by creator. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. —Theopolisme (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Delete as per WP:NBOOK. Andrew327 16:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Delete There are 100s of such books available, not enough notable as per WP:NBOOK — Preceding...
Click to read more »Self-published first novel - no reviews or awards to indicate that it meets WP:NBOOK. Only assertion of notability from the article creator was that the book...
Click to read more »couple of perfunctory reviews, but not the depth of coverage required by WP:NBOOK UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »case for WP:NBOOK #5 is present, uncontested, and persuasive. The text of NBOOK #5 gives decent and guidance on its narrow application. NBOOK 5 states in...
Click to read more »Publishers Weekly If we count PW as a source for NBOOK, that squeaks AG II and AG III over the line for WP:NBOOK. Because AG I is older, it seems likely that...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »see 4. of WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Comment, works by Amy Tan may also be covered by 5. of WP:NBOOK? Coolabahapple...
Click to read more »11 December 2022 (UTC) @Epa101: The relevant benchmark here IMO is WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, comparing the book's notability to another book is irrelevant...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Promotional. Doesn't pass GNG or NBOOK. Published bt Beau Selector which is a matchmaking service for Muslims (and...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This is not a notable book (fails WP:NBOOK). Article is just an advertisement. damiens.rf 10:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. A WP:BEFORE revealed a single review from a blog. Book was self-published...
Click to read more »page. The result was delete. Consensus there's no evidence of meeting WP:NBOOK j⚛e deckertalk 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) The Last Orange (edit | talk |...
Click to read more »discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK. According to policy, a book is notable if it's "been the subject of two...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. This easily meets WP:NBOOK (WP:BOOKCRIT #1). The book has been...
Click to read more »No references given (and hard to find any) to support its meeting of WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Delete - No reliable, independent...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't meat WP:NBOOK Amisom (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »Delete Orangemike beat me to it while I was reading the sources provided. WP:NBOOK and WP:TNT both apply. Even if this book were shown to be notable, we'd...
Click to read more »should be made to this page. The result was keep. Sources found that meet NBOOK. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [Hide this...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I do not believe this book meets WP:NBOOK as I can find no substantial coverage of it in reliable independent sources...
Click to read more »meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews listed above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Keep Passes WP:NBOOK with multiple...
Click to read more »slight indication of importance. You may respond with WP:NBOOK #5. I personally read NBOOK #5 as being common-sense enough to exclude unfinished and...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Does not appear to have significant independent coverage. Padgriffin Griffin's...
Click to read more »independent review coverage of the subject to enable satisfaction of WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [Hide...
Click to read more »including a reference of the book from its own Google book listing! Fails WP:NBOOK. Haueirlan (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »Fails WP:NBOOK. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Delete. There's just nothing out there to show that this book ultimately passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NPLOT and WP:NBOOK, couldn't find any reviews or other indications of notability in any reliable...
Click to read more »just released. This appears to be the first book by the author. Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Delete: A...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Shadowowl, how did you come to the conclusion that this topic doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG; possibly worth a redirect to author. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 25...
Click to read more »Non-notable novel series; no references available that demonstrate it meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete. Obviously fails WP:NBOOK, WP:NPOV ProtossPylon 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Strong delete. Fails WP:NBOOK, no coverage in any Google-searchable...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep meets WP:NBOOK after improvements.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 02:02...
Click to read more »meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, has more than two reviews, article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG...
Click to read more »TWL) There aren't reliable sources and this topic is not notable (fails WP:NBOOK). Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »and WP:NBOOK. Published in October 2017, and as such as not acquired the literary significance mandated by Wikipedia for inclusion per WP:NBOOK, nor does...
Click to read more »enough reviews, as shown above, to pass WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Keep, another WP:NBOOK slamdunk with multiple reviews, can nominators...
Click to read more »The book by Umesh kaushik. I can't find any evidence that this meets WP:NBOOK; no reviews in major publications, no significant awards, not cited as influential...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »is notability, in particular WP:NBOOK. To be honest I have seen worse survive AfD, but upon checking I see that NBOOK#1 specifically excludes publications...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Meets WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC) [Hide this...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Keep. The article...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) While I like this book and its contents, it does not meet WP:NBOOK parameters: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2]...
Click to read more »independent of the subject and in a reliable place to show that this passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC) The Remaining, Part One...
Click to read more »Delete, fails WP:NBOOK. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Delete Fails everything, would have gone for speedy delete due no to WP:NBOOK as well as advertising...
Click to read more »non-trivial sources to meet WP:NBOOK. No awards, motion pictures, or use for instruction. Delete, since this topic fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:05, 30...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »similar "trade" book review journals/magazines are not precluded from WP:NBOOK (unless a footnote has been snuck in recently:)), (although there is some...
Click to read more »Merge. Without references, it is impossible to determine if it meets WP:NBOOK. Liam987(talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »review in a WP:RS, to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 18 June...
Click to read more »fails WP:NBOOK. GSMR (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Delete. I wish the author well, but at this point in time the book just doesn't pass NBOOK. It hasn't...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »does not meet WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:NBOOK at this point. ♠PMC♠...
Click to read more »Fails WP:NBOOK. Found only trivial reviews including the one ref. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Keep - won the Nero Award 1992 (WP:NBOOK #2)....
Click to read more »addressing the concern of the PROD nomination. It still appears to fail WP:NBOOK. I have been unable to find any reliable source coverage, and particularly...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Keep Passes WP:NBOOK by virtue of being multiply reviewed [1][2][3][4] and more briefly at [5][6][7];...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested prod. The article's subject fails WP:NBOOK. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I think that one reason...
Click to read more »available I don't think it is enough to prove notability. Specifically, WP:NBOOK says that books must be covered in "multiple, non-trivial published works"...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The book does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I was unable to locate substantive reviews in reliable, reputable...
Click to read more »to fail WP:NBOOK. I can't seem to find any references to it in google searches. bojo | talk 15:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Delete Fails NBOOK, GNG. Lourdes...
Click to read more »BEFORE I was unable to find independent reviews. The book fails GNG and NBOOK. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Nominating entire series. No reviews, no coverage. Fail GNG and NBOOK. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Would be happy to userfy it if consensus is to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Delete as failing WP:NBOOK. Seems to...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod removed. ninety:one 22:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Keep - Book apparently...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NBOOK Edmondhills (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK. This book has received reviews from publications including Library Journal...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK JMHamo (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Delete fails WP:NBOOK, unsourced BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) promotional and does not appear to meet NBOOK DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews, a gsearch doesn't bring...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NBOOK. Noahe123 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Keep, Meets WP:NBOOK ie multiple reviews, reviews by Kirkus (here), BookTrust (here), The Bulletin...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unnotable book, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. No reviews found, other than user-generated ones. Pilaz (talk)...
Click to read more »coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable. Fails WP:NBOOK. This comes from a declined AfC submission and subsequent move to mainspace...
Click to read more »TWL) Non-notable book. Fails Wikipedia:NBOOK. Gazal world (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and then some. Zero coverage except...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 TT me 10:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger...
Click to read more »a book myself or not. Per WP:NBOOK, in order to be notable, a book must satisfy at least one of the criteria in WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Currently, there is...
Click to read more »CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Delete per nom - fails WP:NBOOK, and is unsourced. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »meet the notability standard in WP:NBOOK. There is no indication that it meets the 2nd through 5th parts of NBOOK. As for the first, a search of Google...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more ») 13:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC) Comment. The book definitely meets WP:NBOOK — see [1] [2] [3] [4] — but the article is clearly not suitable for mainspace...
Click to read more »Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Delete does not meet WP:NBOOK and part of an apparent walled garden around the author, Ying Chang Compestine...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The subject of this article does not meet WP:NBOOK. Book-jacket reviews fail #1. There are about about 30 citations, as obtained...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Nominating entire Murphy series. Fail GNG and NBOOK. One book is reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, but none have multiple reviews...
Click to read more »discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK. I found three two reviews: [1], [2], [3]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:02...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »WP:BEFORE? SL93 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Keep per SL93. Passes WP:NBOOK with flying colors. The nominator has only been around for two weeks, so...
Click to read more »children's book. The only reliable source that I could find was this. Fails WP:NBOOK. - MrX 13:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK, which I know is a guideline. So fails WP:GNG as well...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Curb Chain (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Keep. I'm not quite finished...
Click to read more »Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Could use more work to read like an encyclopedia article. Aasim (talk)...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Subject does not meet WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Article is not sourced. lullabying (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2020...
Click to read more »sources satisfies WP:NBOOK. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Keep - Respectfully I added the book and I reviewed WP:NBOOK so I wouldn't waste...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Shadowowl, how did you come to the conclusion that this topic doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Very recently released book which fails WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong comment 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Keep. The article...
Click to read more »stores and the author's Kickstarter campaign for the books. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014...
Click to read more »to meet "anything written" criteria of WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Keep: WP:NBOOK states that it doesn't cover manuals. This...
Click to read more »satisfy NBOOK even without the ABA Journal. Since NBOOK requires two sources, an argument that ignores at least two sources can never defeat NBOOK. And GNG...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, numerous reviews of this book (thankyou Bakazaka). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable book fails WP:NBOOK and the creator is a WP:SPA editing only on one subject and creating WP:SOAPBOX...
Click to read more »officially WP:WIKIHOUNDING ([1]). Please stop. Meets the very definition of WP:NBOOKS. More than two (2) reviews of in-depth book reviews. Made The New York Times...
Click to read more »Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1, given the multiple reviews (NYT, Guardian) and journal articles mentioned above. And possibly also meets WP:NBOOK criterion...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book, fails WP:NBOOK, prod template removed without reason WWGB (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »notable enough for its own article. Most self-published and indie books fail NBOOK and while it'd be nice if we could include everyone, this just isn't feasible...
Click to read more »managed to find a single substantial review, and so it likely fails WP:NBOOK. — kashmīrī TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested PROD. Fails WP:NBOOK. Only reference is a Press release and the editor has refused to answer...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Delete everything...
Click to read more »notable, fails WP:NBOOK. Changing vote to keep and improve due to references and awards that would appear to make this book pass WP:NBOOK. –Chase (talk)...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unsourced; fails WP:NBOOK. DrStrauss talk 08:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »substantiate notability aren't forthcoming, so I don't think this meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Keep NBOOK is met; this is the type of book...
Click to read more »Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, zero library holdings (wheres the snicket museum/library?, gsearch...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOK. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Delete. The sources in the article are clearly not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK,...
Click to read more »amount to significant coverage. So, the book doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »about the author. I believe it fails WP:NBOOK. BethNaught (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. No reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 02:33...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book that fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG that has been tagged as needing additional references for ten...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) Keep. You ignored the first and most important criterion in NBOOK: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. All sources are primarily about the author and most only briefly mention...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK as it's self-published and has no significant coverage from independent...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG.Tknifton (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because no evidence they pass WP:NBOOKS or...
Click to read more »helps confirm notability per WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, in addition to the Washington...
Click to read more »this book under the Finnish or English title to support WP:GNG, and WP:NBOOK isn't met. The article's creator removed a PROD tag, based on the WP:GNG...
Click to read more »self-published book. I wish the author well, but this just doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. No claims of notability. No reliable secondary sources. No references....
Click to read more »positives for an Australian anime/manga convention. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Prod disputed by article's creator. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 9 November 2015...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. The sourcing consists primarily of reviews/mentions in a small number of...
Click to read more »2022 (UTC) Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK. IndaneLove (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Delete, article has WP:NBOOK and WP:NPOV concerns. PCN02WPS (talk...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 13:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note as the author...
Click to read more »(talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK this has been the subject of school instruction at at least two institutions...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK – at least I have not managed to find any other substantial review than...
Click to read more »D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BOOK WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nothing to merge in addition to info already on author's...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to Top Shelf Productions. Boleyn...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book about Star Wars universe. Fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »subject of the article seems to pass WP:NBOOK. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, there are lots of reviews of Snakes,...
Click to read more »Piotr support that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Keep as most of the added sources support WP:NBOOK although I've added...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. No reliable secondary sources, no claims of notability. Rogermx (talk)...
Click to read more »non-trivial sources to meet WP:NBOOK. No awards, motion pictures, or use for instruction. Delete, since this topic fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 15:27, 31...
Click to read more »independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google search reveals blog posts and reader reviews at Amazon and elsewhere...
Click to read more »notability on the book. Quite simply, the book does not meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK. The editor who originaly PROD tagged the article looked for sources, and...
Click to read more »(here). This is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Keep: Meets NBOOK per reviews listed above. Toughpigs...
Click to read more »known people that don't pass NBOOK. Shucks, I've even seen books land on national bestseller lists that have failed NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 6...
Click to read more »that it meets WP:NBOOK#4 then let me know & I’d change my !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Celestina007 WP:NBOOK specifically says...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Delete fails to pass WP:NBOOK. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NBOOK. Riteboke (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2021...
Click to read more »Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Delete and I'm surprised to...
Click to read more »TWL) Article makes no claim to notability and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Cited reviews include a user-submitted review for the Guardian and a Publishers...
Click to read more »citing only the book itself with no secondary coverage whatsoever, fails WP:NBOOK. Mariamnei (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NBOOK is a very low bar, but even with that I can not find enough notability for...
Click to read more »Searches did not turn up enough coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »some standard book reviews and thus technically meets criterion #1 of WP:NBOOK, it's still merely a content fork of the parent article and thus has no...
Click to read more »Demonata would probably be okay but I suspect some of these books do meet WP:NBOOK. A search on ProQuest reveals that Demon Thief was reviewed by School Library...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Keep. Added a book and an academic paper each about La Déchirure. This meets WP:NBOOK #1...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Notability is not inherited from Top Trumps. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:50...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK notability guidelines. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY, adequate sourcing has been found to meet WP:NBOOK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »Bergþórsdóttir. This is an independent review of the sort the first part of WP:NBOOK applies to. It's a credible newspaper, a credible journalist (plausibly...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I don't think this self-published book meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It does not appear to have received multiple reviews in reliable...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK, unsourced and I can't find any significant coverage. The author has no...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Per WP:NBOOK: Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not...
Click to read more »July 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator per reviews added to satisfy WP:NBOOK. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Keep Passes WP:NBOOK#1. Added references and quotes from reviews in The New York Times, Publishers...
Click to read more »sources, 3 of them are about the book directly. I belive it now meets WP:NBOOK. J.Turner99 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC) I feel there is enough...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No reviews as far as I can find, so it fails WP:NBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Keep. I see at least three...
Click to read more »3-sentence "review"[1] is a "proper review", and that you understand that WP:NBOOK #1 requires multiple reviews, and that at least on review must contain serious...
Click to read more »This is the 2nd book in a series of four, which probably wouldn't meet NBOOK as a series either. There's no coverage to speak of and the only sources...
Click to read more »paper that has been heavily cited by books that meet WP:NBOOK WOULD be considered notable by WP:NBOOK. I'm not clear whether you (a) don't know the definition...
Click to read more »article about a self-published book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - MrX 01:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:NBOOK criteria Nz101UserpageTalkpage 04:04, 4 June...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails to address any of the criteria under WP:NBOOK, lacks any independent reliable secondary sources per WP: GNG. Dan arndt...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails NBOOK, non-notable book by a barely notable author MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:32...
Click to read more »the novel or any other sources that would help satisfy any aspect of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. Only review provided is a blog, and Google search ("Relatos desde el Umbral"...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This paper RPG does not seem to meet WP:NBOOKS/GNG. I am not seeing any reviews of the system "The Everlasting" as a whole...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable book. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Sources are poor to unreliable, primary PR links by Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. See...
Click to read more »or valid claim to notability". I said "Book fails WP:NBOOK", not that this article fails NBOOK - I only mentioned it to deal with any suggestions that...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book by non-notable author, fails WP:NBOOK. I have not been able to find any significant coverage online. Article consists...
Click to read more »discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK. A Newspapers.com search shows the following reviews, among others: The...
Click to read more »TWL) Can't find a single independent, reliable source. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »Keep. Conventionally, an author can usually pass WP:NAUTHOR with two WP:NBOOK-notable books. In addition to the Publishers' Weekly profile/interview from...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No assertion of notability, fails WP:BOOK WP:NBOOK, no references to independent reliable sources. Prod removed with edit summary:...
Click to read more »sufficient coverage or been credited with sufficient influence to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Noahe123 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD...
Click to read more »one non-trivial source (a brief review here); doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is mostly another platform for the writer and all the references listed...
Click to read more »Currently the sources are insufficient to establish the book as notable per WP:NBOOK. The sources cited are: [1], an ebook version of the text; [2], which is...
Click to read more »discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, multiple reviews available (2 listed in the article, hence why...
Click to read more »by Nobel Prize for Literature winner Rabindranath Tagore doesn't pass WP:NBOOK criterion 5 then I don't know what would. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 22...
Click to read more »not properly demonstrating enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:NBOOK. Two of the six footnotes here are primary source content from the author's...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOKS. Minimum two non-trivial coverage are missing which must appear in sources...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails to satisfy any of the criteria under WP:NBOOK. Unable to find any independent reliable secondary sources that would address...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I believe this book fails WP:NBOOK, as my WP:BEFORE search only turned up book-selling websites and fan sites...
Click to read more »Matthew_Shepard#Advocacy. There is a weak consensus that this article passes WP:NBOOK and can be fixed. However, since the article's creator has already merged...
Click to read more »Non notable book by non notable author(s) (no Wikipedia pages). Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Keep Either the book...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. I could not find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Crystallizedcarbon...
Click to read more »game. To argue that NBOOK doesn't apply to Man, Myth and Magic because it shipped with dice and a poster is akin to arguing that NBOOK doesn't apply to Ursula...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Reviewed for NPP. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. There doesn't seem to be a lot about the book? There is a decent amount...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews that support notability...
Click to read more »of WP:NBOOK. Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Keep - GNG is satisfied by the reviews found. Chetsford's view of the "spirit of NBOOK" has not...
Click to read more »nom and NBOOK. Not too big a surprise that this tome didn't get reviewed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Delete As per WP:NBOOK Angryskies...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has carried a Notability tag since July 2018, but independent...
Click to read more »edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete per consensus. WP:NBOOK "keep" argument fails. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Author and publisher are both non-notable. Source 1 is debatable whether it qualifies under NBOOK - a single paragraph with...
Click to read more »2016 (UTC) Delete. Fails NBOOK per nom. --regentspark (comment) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Delete Advertorial, fails NBOOK and I strongly suspect the...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contented prod. Fails WP:NBOOK. The references given are for the author's biography, not for the book itself...
Click to read more »the link is to the wrong article. I don't beleieve this passes either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »1 of WP:NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Keep. Agree that this meets both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. This is...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. I can not find any significant coverage of either the book or the author...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NBOOK. Noahe123 (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as having won a major literary award. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with some reliable...
Click to read more »March 2013 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK - article page views are irrelevant; if being a best seller is notable, then WP:NBOOK needs to be changed. ukexpat...
Click to read more »(reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Keep - The book meets WP:NBOOK criterion 1 since it has received at least three reviews (which I added...
Click to read more »(talk) 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Snow keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK. The author, Terry Pratchett, has received a knighthood for services to...
Click to read more »far as I can tell, both the theory and the book that proposes it fail WP:NBOOK. —teb728 t c 03:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »May 2020 (UTC) Delete No sign that the book meets the requirements of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Oddly, it looks like this is the only book ever published by...
Click to read more »page for many years. I'm not seeing refs that could be considered for WP:NBOOK JMWt (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...
Click to read more »theorist Orange Mike | Talk 04:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Delete per WP:NBOOK. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the...
Click to read more »Redirect to emote as {{R from plural}}. Current article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »Garnett, not that I'm convinced he is notable. This doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »Nobel Prize for Literature, the discussions at e.g. Hymn o Perle about WP:NBOOKS #5 should be considered here too, however they turn out. Mortee (talk) 17:42...
Click to read more »appears to be a self-published novel by a non-notable author: fails WP:Nbook ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more » The result was Snow close. I'm closing this one early, as it fails WP:NBOOK pretty clearly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Behind the...
Click to read more »TWL) Recently undeleted per G11 and no effective work to update. Fails WP:NBOOK scope_creepTalk 15:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not fulfill guidelines in WP:NBOOK. Natureium (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »TWL) Can't find any reviews to demonstrate notability; seems to fail WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book, fails to meet critera of WP:NBOOK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keri (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. Roast (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC) Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK with reviews in School Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews and the Bulletin...
Click to read more »no CSD category like A9 for books. However, this clearly fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No indication of meeting WP:NBOOK criteria. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Speedy Keep...
Click to read more »since that requires a lot of dedication, but the book just doesn't pass NBOOK at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »There's simply no actual notability being shown here at all under either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Delete as it stands...
Click to read more »discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Speedy Keep, as WP:NBOOK states that the book only has to meet one criterion. The nom has openly...
Click to read more »deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1. I added a few reviews that I found of the book and its audiobook...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Probably fails WP:NBOOK. It is possible that the author herself (Inga Raitar) is notable for enwiki...
Click to read more »this book is not even out yet. Therefore no awards, reviews, etc., per WP:NBOOK, and nobody's writing about devoted fans waiting in line at bookstores for...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No evidence that this book meets WP:NBOOK. No sources are provided that support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:18...
Click to read more »‘non-trivial published works’ and therefore not sure if this passes WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »using NBOOK as the basis for argument. Typically it's done with NBOOK #1 using multiple book reviews. I think what you are arguing for is NBOOK #5, that...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I don't believe the novel meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG as I was unable to locate substantive reviews (excluding blogs...
Click to read more »article because I could not find any secondary coverage (let enough WP:NBOOK) and one of the authors of the book was the main contributor to the article...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Simply doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Could not find a single source in which this book is the primary topic...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Only sources are from the author himself, or other intelligence academics...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Delete - Looks to be an excellent...
Click to read more »example of why we need a CSD criteria for this sort of drivel. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, WP:NWEB, etc. etc.... Yunshui 雲水 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable book by non-notable author, fails the criteria on WP:NBOOK. funplussmart (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »It appears that the only independent sources are listings which fail WP:NBOOK's requirement for non-trivial coverage, and the excessive level of detail...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Book that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK after some verification. There are several references, but many are 404...
Click to read more »Literature. No, that doesn't mean each of her works is notable (see also WP:NBOOK). Arguably, many of her short stories are notable and we probably need articles...
Click to read more »Booklist [10], and more. Seems like a relatively straightforward WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK pass to me. DanCherek (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Keep Um, either DanCherek...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »of the two refs is Amazon. Needs at least two non-trivial refs to be WP:NBOOK. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Comment- Amazon is linked because...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Could not find any coverage about this except a passing mention in an Audible...
Click to read more »Seller list. As it also counts towards NBOOK criteria 1, IMO the four reviews and a bestseller list appearance meet NBOOK in addition to GNG being satisfied...
Click to read more »a children's book. The only source that I could find was this. Fails WP:NBOOK. - MrX 13:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I searched the internet for WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, but it didn’t work.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:20, 3 April 2025...
Click to read more »not have a biographical article, and not reliably sourced as passing WP:NBOOKS. Two of the three citations here are to the books' directory entries on...
Click to read more »sources, there just isn't anything out there to show that this passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »significant coverage by independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The reviews added are self-published blogs. User reviews on Amazon.com...
Click to read more »TimothyJosephWood 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Delete: Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK. bojo | talk 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »Cringy Username (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Keep This series meets WP:NBOOKS by having reviews from two different sources, the Manga Life reviews are...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) No independent critical coverage found - clearly fails WP:NBOOK (and WP:GNG) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Passes WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet WP:NBOOK and a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything besides a single review [1]. Couldn't...
Click to read more »significant coverage, mostly tiny online reviews, no indication it passes WP:NBOOK. JFHJr (㊟) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Delete for failing WP:BK and WP:GNG...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to me to fail WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. Madness Darkness 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Delete. It's one of those...
Click to read more »reliable sources discussing this book and believe that it fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »searches do not support notability for this book, Article is PROMO. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »Delete Google search produces no secondary RS coverage. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK. Not opposed to a redirect as suggested by Tokyogirl79, providing the George...
Click to read more »(π, ν) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no reviews found. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Geoffroi (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Delete this book "written by several students and their teacher" fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Meets NBOOK, as shown by Lourdes. (non-admin closure) J947 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Only sources are a review and a passing reference. Lightly cited. Tgeairn...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Unsourced since creation. Prod contested in 2006, concern was "Spam/advertising...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) Delete doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Delete Seems to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG; no sources seemed to...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK, it’s got two reviews from reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK, reviews from PW...
Click to read more »Clarityfiend. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with multiple...
Click to read more »non-notable author, who's article has also been deleted (a7). Fails WP:NBOOK. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »many pass WP:NBOOK. For each book, I stopped when I found 2 reviews. Marvels, Magic and Witchcraft in the North Riding of Yorkshire: [1] NBOOK pass - The...
Click to read more »Booklist and The Washington Post. This is enough for us to have an article, WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews. Haukur (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Mooonswimmer 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »WP:PROMO. A cursory google search shows that the subject does not meet WP:NBOOK as well. Wisenerd (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Note: this discussion...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Given the current sourcing, the book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. At present, the article cites only one source independent of the subject...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A textbook, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. The obituary of the author references some newspaper articles that I can't...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable textbook: WP:NBOOK Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Also including for...
Click to read more »have a logical contender for WP:BOOKPROD but now that it's here. Under WP:NBOOK point 1 which requires 2 notable reviews - unless they are hidden in pubmed...
Click to read more »notability. Apart from a few routine reviews, it does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Delete. The subject...
Click to read more »No sources because it isn't published yet, so fails all criterias on WP:NBOOK. A PROD was declined by the author without giving a reason. Ben Ben (talk)...
Click to read more »Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Delete does not pass WP:NBOOK and also consists of little more than a plot description Atlantic306 (talk)...
Click to read more »and which does not have a strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NBOOK. As always, every literary award that exists at all is not an automatic...
Click to read more »handled. Caro7200 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, theres already three reviews in the article, theres also a Booklist review...
Click to read more »discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Lack of reviews in reliable sources, and although I found a couple of references...
Click to read more »discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Delete, fails WP:NBOOK. If only there was a literary equivalent of WP:A9, then we could've got...
Click to read more »The result was delete. No evidence of notability under the criteria of WP:NBOOK. j⚛e deckertalk 15:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC) AfDs for this article: Articles...
Click to read more »straightforward as some of the previous !votes. The book does not pass NBOOK on English sourcing (Guardian ran it as a serial - so not independent, and...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I don't think this book passes WP:NBOOK. It would have passed criteria #2, but it was only nominated for an award...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »adaptation, but the article is not sourced and the topic does not pass WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG to have its own article. Japanese Wikipedia also has no sources...
Click to read more »No evidence that this self-published book has any notability or meets WP:NBOOK. Original editor (and dePRODder) is author of book (see old version of User...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to fail WP:NBOOK bobrayner (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »Bearian (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Delete per above. Fails WP:NBOOK as there are no reliable sources discussing it. After deletion, either the...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable book, promotion/ advertisement. Fails GNG, NBOOK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief and Wikipedia:Articles...
Click to read more »Without coverage in reliable sources, it does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, and as the author does not have an article themselves, there is no appropriate...
Click to read more »me as the kind of publication that do not often get the coverage for WP:NBOOK. It was also challenging to filter out coverage of the people and the exhibition...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. Only 55 unique Google hits for the title. ... discospinster talk 14:01...
Click to read more »review is trivial, so #1 of WP:NBOOK is not met. Is the Guelph Mercury review longer? None of the other criteria at WP:NBOOK are met. Cxbrx (talk) 20:11...
Click to read more »bestseller lists like the NYT. (Merchant lists are specifically excluded from WP:NBOOK.) The sources on the page are entirely unusable, as they're predominantly...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No evidence this book meets criteria of WP:NBOOK. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Keep Review...
Click to read more »Comment. Her textbooks appear to be quite popular, so they probably pass WP:NBOOK#4. If it can be shown that her books are "the subject of instruction at...
Click to read more »--Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I'd support a merge into an article about the author, but I don't think...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. No references provided to back up claims made in article. Cannot find any...
Click to read more »has received no reliable coverage that would satisfy WP:NBOOK. Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK guidelines in any way at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23...
Click to read more »North America1000 22:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Strong keep Meets WP:NBOOK, namely "The book has won a major literary award" AusLondonder (talk) 23:02...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Without significant coverage, this novel fails WP:NBOOK. GTrang (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Delete: Couldn't find any references...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Declined PROD, courtesy ping MarkZusab. Fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of major reviews, awards or other significant coverage in independent...
Click to read more »29 April 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK 5.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Keep meets WP:NBOOK, notable author's work.Cedix (talk)...
Click to read more »itself is non-notable with no claim to notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Don't let the notability of "The Amityville Horror" add to the discussion;...
Click to read more »first criterion of WP:NBOOK. There are three non-trivial, scholarly reviews that are cited on the article itself: [1][2][3]. NBOOK requires only two independent...
Click to read more »not seeing the independent coverage that would merit notability under WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Catrìona (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Delete. I wanted...
Click to read more »Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Book of childrens' poetry that doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. While the article has a link showing that the book won an asward, there's...
Click to read more »Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Isabelle 🔔 19:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Redirect to author unless sources are presented showing this meets NBOOK; ping me and I'll...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. No sources except two poorly written press releases/non-bylined...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Delete totally fails...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Automated comment:...
Click to read more »been a TV series so passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, multiple reviews...
Click to read more »North America1000 23:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. google search brings up nothing useable. Article createor was...
Click to read more »more specifically WP:NBOOK. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Delete. Not seeing any reviews, as written fails NBOOK. --Piotr Konieczny...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Speedy Delete - The article has...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOKS. Self-published user generated references. No sign of notability. Created...
Click to read more »alone does not automatically satisfy a light novel’s notability under WP:NBOOK, and reliable sources are still required to demonstrate its significance...
Click to read more »the box mentions NBOOK, also in blue, and the phrase "fails NBOOK" means that the draft doesn't meet the criteria listed at the NBOOK link. Well, I see...
Click to read more »16:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Czesław Miłosz, won a nobel prize for literature (and other...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Article doesn't meet any of the 5 criteria at WP:NBOOK. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, first & third source are about book selling...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) Delete. Completely non notable self-published e-book. Fails WP:NBOOK and is probably an advert. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah...
Click to read more »WP:NBOOK. The only independent coverage is a handful of academic reviews. This is not enough to establish notability per criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK: The...
Click to read more »— JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Keep, as article meets WP:NBOOK and now has plenty of reliable sources thanks to Tokyogirl79. Coolabahapple...
Click to read more »Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)...
Click to read more »but I can’t find any others and it does not seem that this work passes WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »independent, reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to show notability per WP:NBOOK. This is actually pretty par for the course with self-published works, as...
Click to read more »Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:NBOOK as the author has won a Nobel in literature. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)...
Click to read more »per above. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I am unsure that the redirect title, The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley, meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG either, but that's...
Click to read more »should be made to this page. Result was keep. Consensus that the book meets NBOOK. Nomination and delete !vote do not suggest to the contrary.Rlendog (talk)...
Click to read more »2013 (UTC) Delete Sources are not very strong to show notability per WP:NBOOK. Juicymagonline.com is OK (but not really a review) the rest are unreliable...
Click to read more »Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Keep Looks to pass WP:NBOOK on the basis of reviews. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »January 2019 (UTC) Comment - the book Getting Out Alive - might pass WP:NBOOK. The bio itself probably does not pass GNG/NAUTHOR - might be merit for...
Click to read more »academic publications, IMDB pages, and random locations in New Orleans. For WP:NBOOK purposes, the relevant part is this sentence: Critical response to Antiquitas...
Click to read more »text since subject fails WP:NBOOK. -The Gnome (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Delete as PROMO for a book. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 1 May...
Click to read more »exist, and the article passes per WP:NBOOK and WP:NEXIST. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Keep since NBOOK criteria 1 is met via the published...
Click to read more »that alone isn't enough.) There is nothing in the draft to indicate WP:NBOOK notability, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »forthcoming self-published book. No evidence of notability whether under WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Delete: unpublished non...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Prod removed by creator. Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Could redirect to Adam Spencer#Book. Boleyn (talk) 21:56, 5 January...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. The one cited review is more a political opinion than a book review (the...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. [1] is good as a source, but the Calgary Herald piece cited in the article...
Click to read more »discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Delete, fails WP:NBOOK. -Cntras (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough...
Click to read more »discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK among others. MarnetteD|Talk 05:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Delete - we don't...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Just a novel; no notability to meet WP:NBOOK. Htanaungg (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »February 2018 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, WorldCat shows libraries'...
Click to read more »I dislike the author it does have two published reviews which meets WP:NBOOK--Savonneux (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) that is a very minimal requirement...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I don't think this article about a book series meets WP:NBOOK. In carrying out WP:BEFORE I found and added an interview with the author...
Click to read more »The result was delete per WP:SNOW. There's little chance of this passing NBOOK if this were to run for longer. There are also valid concerns about self-promotion...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable novel; fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK, no WP:SIGCOV मल्ल (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete: No reception section, and a BEFORE turned up nothing. Fails NBOOK. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC) Keep per below. Gommeh 📖 🎮...
Click to read more »show a pass of WP:NBOOK so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Keep per WP:NBOOK and the sources identified...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Entirely unreferenced pulp sci-fi book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »//nepaxt 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Delete. Does not meet either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG and cannot find sources anywhere. /wia /tlk 17:45, 3 November...
Click to read more »@MCE89: support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Keep: Sources in the article meets WP:NBOOK. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of...
Click to read more »Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Keep: Clearly passes WP:NBOOK as the book has been subject of multiple reviews from many reliable sources...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Has 1 citation and is particularly well writen. In solidarity Dafootballguy...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK, the article was created without sources in 2007 and ever since the book...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep passes NBOOK, barely. If someone wants to write a series article and merge it to that, that would be preferable per NBOOK, but outright deletion...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK, I could not turn up any coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This book does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Couldn't find any reviews on isfdb, newspapers.com or proquest. ARandomName123...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No indication of meeting WP:NBOOK, largest portion of article text was copied from book's summary on a website...
Click to read more »the PROD and sure enough, there aren't any that would show it passes WP:NBOOK. This just isn't notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20...
Click to read more »claims to notability are either unsourced or dubious. Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note, though the search...
Click to read more »disagree with this as it's a potentially ambiguous title. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »blogs. Even reviews linked on the author's website lacks anything for WP:NBOOK. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unclear it meets WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK with articles in The Guardian [1], The...
Click to read more »notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. If at some point it becomes more notable it can be re-added, but at this...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NBOOK. While this isn't named as a list, in function, it is a list. I'm not finding...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Nothing indicates WP:NBOOK notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Re-nominating because the subject fails WP:NBOOK. Most of the prior arguments to keep were along the lines of "real book"...
Click to read more »its current state reads as an advertisement. I wouldn't say it meets WP:NBOOK, as it's only being covered by a few WP:RS and only for the fact it's not...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep what do you mean by notability i think you need to read this WP:NBOOK Well 1st thing is this book is an authoritative and popular biography of...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK with no secondary sources or awards. The only source given is a WP:NEWSPRIMARY...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOKS. Self-published user generated references. No sign of notability. Created...
Click to read more »very clear NBOOK pass with plenty of reviews and RS bestseller lists. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Keep - Passes WP:NBOOK. signed,...
Click to read more »TWL) Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. You can argue with me that since Tolkien is a very important author, that it would meet NBOOK #5, but my response to that...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Recently-published e-book that does not satisfy WP:NBOOK. A Google search for "Tiny Instruments" + author's name gives only 49 results...
Click to read more »Sexual Behavior and Sexualities, which are reliable sources and satisfy WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC) One source still doesn't...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, however I decided against prod as there may be Tamil sources...
Click to read more »my throat but I'm wondering if a locus nomination is enough to meet WP:NBOOK--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC) The problem is that nominations...
Click to read more »Prize in Literature for her short stories. The topic therefore passes WP:NBOOK, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's...
Click to read more »but enough. Montanabw(talk) 10:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Keep - Meets WP:NBOOK criteria. Article was expanded and cleaned up since original publishing...
Click to read more »Miłosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature, criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK is met. In addition, a Wikipedia Library search turns up 27 scholarly articles...
Click to read more »logs | views) Two books from the same non−notable author which fail WP:NBOOK. I can find no professional reviews or other significant coverage, nor any...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Kirkus reviewed it (link) as part of their Kirkus Indie program...
Click to read more »to this page. The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC) [Hide this...
Click to read more »to carry more P&G weight. The source analysis presented here suggests WP:NBOOK isn't met, although it doesn't fall far behind. I see no valid reason to...
Click to read more »reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Kindle First Selection is not a notable accomplishment. Jbh (talk) 17:37...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »Inks.LWC (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Delete Does not mean WP:NBOOK, cannot find any sources. Author has an article but is also of questionable...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK -- haminoon (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Delete as per nom. Yann...
Click to read more »only has fleeting mentions in RS. This does not meet the threshold of WP:NBOOK. A mention of the book would however be due at Frankenstein authorship question...
Click to read more »independent sources.Fails WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom; fails NBOOK. Britishfinance (talk) 16:03...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK, tagged since 2012. — JFG talk 15:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »way. Passes NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Keep and recommend withdrawal: Far more than enough coverage for NBOOK. Reviewed in...
Click to read more »mention of this book, so it doesn't look it passes criterion one of WP:NBOOK. I do see that it is the subject of study in many language arts classes...
Click to read more »TWL) This book does not appear to meet relevant notability guideline WP:NBOOK. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) Delete: Can't find any reliable sources as it fails GNG and NBOOK. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 22:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »still sigcov. NBOOK requires 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Keep: I added a few other reviews as well, passes GNG and NBOOK. Shapeyness...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Delete - This is probably...
Click to read more »mention over a PR spam (vide this) at Zee News. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NBOOKS by a few many miles; see this GNews search string. ∯WBGconverse 14:29, 21...
Click to read more »Keep Wow... this is an unfortunate article... The comic should satisfy WP:NBOOK as there are multiple reviews. See Comic Book Roundup for some of them....
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK,the only independent reliable source I could find was this 1969 Atlantic...
Click to read more »a book that has been proded with a book that fails the criterias in WP:NBOOK. No independent sources about it. PROD contestet by the author (of both...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Doesn't appear to pass WP:NBOOK Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I can find a mention of...
Click to read more »Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS, reviews by Library Journal, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly,...
Click to read more »find WP:SIGCOV in RELIABLE sources. Fails with limited coverage to meet WP:NBOOK and WP:NEWSORGINDIA for what scant coverage may exist. Iljhgtn (they/them...
Click to read more »minor journal. No indication of independent notability, does not meet WP:NBOOK Crusio (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »featured review. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to the book reviews cited, here are a couple more:...
Click to read more »that a word?) promo piece on a non-notable book, clearly fails WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. I would have said redir to the article on the author, but no point if that's...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails wp:nbook, created by a blocked sock, merge into author article. aprock (talk) 01:38...
Click to read more »Self-published, no holdings or significant reviews or coverage. Fails WP:NBOOKS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Delete per nom. Unsourced...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete - I can find no sources that suggest this book satisfies WP:NBOOK. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Delete Forget looking...
Click to read more »discussions. FactStructure (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Keep Meets WP:NBOOK (the significant coverage in The New Jewish American Literary Studies, the...
Click to read more »images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non notable book, fails Wp:GNG, wp:NBOOK and wp:SIGCOV. Possible COI & UPE. UNI is paid for press release, New Indian...
Click to read more »reviews in reliable sources, no news coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:NBOOK. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Weak delete This appears...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No evidence of any notability satisfying WP:NBOOK or any other criterion. DePRODded without comment by creating editor. Only...
Click to read more »without notability. Book fails WP:GNG and has no basis for notability from WP:NBOOK. I did search the Malayalam title as given in the Wikipedia article, but...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No sources provided that help notability per WP:NBOOK, though it is very hard to search for. The actual title appears to be "Szentek...
Click to read more »in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. In its current incarnation, it would also be the subject of WP:TNT, as...
Click to read more »of his, but there just isn't enough coverage to where this would pass WP:NBOOK at this point in time. The difficulty is that I have a feeling that there...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Unsourced; I can find no significant coverage or any other evidence of...
Click to read more »The result was Result was keep; consensus that the book is notable under NBOOK #5. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Der König verneigt sich und tötet...
Click to read more »Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK. Google brings up nothing, appears to be offered as a free ebook and published...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow (book): Fails WP:NBOOK; no refs, no awards, no major motion picture starring Lindsey Lohan as Katie...
Click to read more »autobiographical book does not meet the criteria for inclusion found at WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of...
Click to read more »self-published sources which are no good for establishing notability per WP:NBOOK and the second does not seem to have gathered significant coverage of any...
Click to read more »March 2013 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. Yworo (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Delete Book must exist IRL per WP:NBOOK. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:49...
Click to read more »Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. No reliable sources found, only the usual bookseller and other non-useable...
Click to read more »evidence this passes WP:NBOOK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Redirect As others have noted the book does not meet WP:NBOOK. However, the title...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK. Author and publisher are both non-notable. The two sources in the article...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Also, completely redundant to...
Click to read more »as pointed out above, in the NYT. It satisfies the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. I'm not familiar with notability criteria for people to say anything about...
Click to read more »instead of a 3rd relist because there is the possibility of meeting WP:NBOOK, which requires deeper discussion. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:13...
Click to read more »February 2018 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, WorldCat shows libraries'...
Click to read more »the article yet. Meets WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Keep: Per sources above, enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This book does not meet the standards of WP:NBOOK. The only source—the Economist’s 2006 Top Books list—is not anything close...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Long-unreferenced article doesn't appear to me at WP:NBOOK despite well-known author. Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. Web sources appear to be limited to a handful of passing references that...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NBOOK Veggies (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »there's nothing on JSTOR, EBSCO, Gale, or ProQuest. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Hog Farm Talk 05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...
Click to read more »review, but the Booklist and Bulletin reviews definitely count towards NBOOK. There's additional reviews in Horn Book Magazine (ProQuest 199443952),...
Click to read more »