Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vi är inte ensamma

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Walton^talk 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vi är inte ensamma[edit]

A straight summary of an (untranslated) book that clearly fails the standard laid out Wikipedia:Notability (books). Eusebeus 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Author has a page on Swedish Wiki and English Wiki, plus several sources (Swedish) indicate this book is notable.--Ispy1981 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to assert notability per WP:N. Also, this article appears to be a machine translation in violation of WP:TIE. Finally, I do not understand the relevance of Ispy1981's self-referential argument whatsoever. The book is relevant because the author has a Wiki article? Such an argument ~~seems to violate the spirit (though not the letter) of WP:ASR~~ is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not an indication of notability. --Nonstopdrivel 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me change my keep slightly and restate my point. My keep doesn't rest on merely the fact that the author is in two wikis. It is in the fact that this book has been referenced by several Swedish websites. Whether they meet the criterion for notability or not, I don't know, since I don't speak Swedish. But, what, are we going to go around deleting articles because they don't have references in English? --Ispy1981 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm concerned because, in its current state, it looks like it was translated literally from some information in Swedish (or written by someone whose English isn't so hot), but the author seems to have some notability. I'd rather say clean it up. If it can be demonstrated that there is no notability for the book (i.e., finding that there's a lack of sources to cite), I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be true that the author is notable, but this needs to be separated from the books notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books). That is why the book notability guideline was established. Eusebeus 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Precisely. Notability is not inherited. --Nonstopdrivel 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I understand that, but do we have something we can link to for notability? I mean, if we do a google search and the only ghits are here on WP, then that alone will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the author doesn't have an English language publisher, she is a wellknown pulp-fiction-writer in Scandinavia and her books are usually best sellers. Google hits are decent for a non-English title published before the advent of the internet. [1] [2] --E ivind ^t ^@^c 18:10, 25 June 2007 (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.