Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Pope

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. NW (Talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Pope

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

Non notable book by non-notable author. Editor has inserted a lot of stuff seeming to promote the book in this and other articles. Essentially WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is an international best seller, and as such, I consider it to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. When I first created the page, another user suggested it be deleted, and after noticing it was a proper book agreed it was worthy of inclusion.

Luis Miguel Rocha is a rising author, who has thus far released two books, published by Penguin. Kep69 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some references here. --maclean 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Book is rated 2.5 stars on amazon.com by 10 reviewers, sales rating = #131,501 our of all amazon.com books. Not quite a best seller worldwide. This is a book that was released 12 months ago. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found online copies of two of the reviews maclean added to the article: Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. As you can see, they are non-trivial. I also discovered a review by USA Today. (And this other article from Library Journal, while it only mentions the book, does describe it as an "international best seller".) There also seem to be quite a few non-English sources, but as I can't read them I don't know how useful they are. Still, the English sources alone are enough for it to pass WP:BK. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 16:46, 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.