Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crimes of Josef Fritzl

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 redirect to Fritzl case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Crimes of Josef Fritzl

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

Non notable book per WP:NB. Only source given so far is the publisher's press release. Article creator declined the prod.-- Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable book published by a major publisher. "The Crimes of Josef Fritzl" returns thousands of Google hits. Bob Cooper III (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some independent coverage/citations of the book: The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Daily Mail. I also found coverage in Spanish, Polish, Swedish, Dutch, German, Portuguese and other languages.
- Also see this article in The Times by one of the authors[1]. BBC
- In short: This is a well known book, written by well-known journalists, that has received significant coverage in other media. Bob Cooper III (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fritzl case. The book can perhaps serve as a source for that article, but I don't see the use of a separate article. --Crusio (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give a rationale for this vote? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fritzl case and mention it there. Does not merit its own article. As it stands, this is just a publisher's puff piece. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per HtDD. Weak-at-best evidence of notability of the book. Book can't ride the coat-tails of notability of its subject. However, as an apparently scholarly work about the case, it makes a viable reference to list in that article. Appears to be cited by others (per above linked articles) but citation-counting by us (especially among news stories, which tend to be a bit incestuous or at least often substantially pulling from newswires and other shared backing sources) doesn't prove notability. DMacks (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:47, 21 August 2009 (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.