Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something Incredible This Way Comes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Something Incredible This Way Comes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable unauthorized biography. – Zntrip 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just out of interest, in what way does a biography have to be "authorized"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An "authorized" biography would be one that the band approves and helps write by providing the biographer with information. Unauthorized biographies are quite common, and thus would have to be significant to warrant an article. This one in question doesn't seem to have any notable qualities. There are at least four unauthorized biographies of the band listed at Amazon.com. – Zntrip 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what I meant was "In what way does a biography have to be 'authorized' according to Wikipedia policy?" - if you can show any policy that rules against "unauthorized" biographies, that would be helpful. In general, many biographies are not "authorized" by their subjects (and I'm not just thinking of biographies of bands), but that does not prohibit their inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, if a biog had to be authorized by its subject for inclusion, then we would only see favourable biogs being included in Wikipedia, which would clearly be against our WP:NPOV policy. Notability is what counts here, not whether the biog is authorized by the subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not nominating the article for deletion simply because it is an "unauthorized" biography. One relevant example is Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, which is an "unauthorized" biography of a band, but is still noteworthy because the author conducted extensive interviews with Kurt Cobain. The article in question, however, has no notable qualities and is one of several such biographies written about the band. All of them are rather obscure and do not meet any of the notability criteria for books. – Zntrip 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - we seem to be agreed that "authorized" is not a relevant criterion and that the decision rests on notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not nominating the article for deletion simply because it is an "unauthorized" biography. One relevant example is Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, which is an "unauthorized" biography of a band, but is still noteworthy because the author conducted extensive interviews with Kurt Cobain. The article in question, however, has no notable qualities and is one of several such biographies written about the band. All of them are rather obscure and do not meet any of the notability criteria for books. – Zntrip 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what I meant was "In what way does a biography have to be 'authorized' according to Wikipedia policy?" - if you can show any policy that rules against "unauthorized" biographies, that would be helpful. In general, many biographies are not "authorized" by their subjects (and I'm not just thinking of biographies of bands), but that does not prohibit their inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, if a biog had to be authorized by its subject for inclusion, then we would only see favourable biogs being included in Wikipedia, which would clearly be against our WP:NPOV policy. Notability is what counts here, not whether the biog is authorized by the subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, does not seem to satisfy WP:BOOK . Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 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.