Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Sin: London and its vices

Add links
Source: 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 keep. (

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

City of Sin: London and its vices

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

routine reviews only. repeated buzzwords from a review does not make for notability. Only 143 library holdings in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria do you use to distinguish a "routine" review from a non-routine one?
talk) 06:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Ref 4 is not a completely different book. The book was published in London by Simon & Schuster as City of Sin: London and its Vices in 2010 and, in New York by St Martin's (Macmillan) in 2011, as The Sexual History of London. There are reviews of both editions in all the mainstream respectable press such as The Times; The Observer; Literary Review; New York Journal of Books; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
WP:NBOOK, a book is notable if 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. The Guardian and The Independent are daily newspapers in the United Kingdom not blogs. Please be informed before commenting. AusLondonder (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't say they were blog entries. I said they were just one step above blog entries. Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:VMS Mosaic - your attack on The Guardian is unexpected. The Guardian is generally regarded as a highly valuable source on Wikipedia. I question whether you would make such comments about an American newspaper? No evidence reviews were online only, anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most American newspapers are not worth the cheap paper they are printed on. I have no problem calling complete crap complete crap, and most American newspapers are complete crap. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what your personal viewpoints on newspapers are, they are still considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to have this changed then you will have to argue against newspapers as sources at
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/City_of_Sin:_London_and_its_vices&oldid=1070575313"