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. Secret ^account 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Football Guidebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability (books). The only reference is to the book, itself. Also, the three awards mentioned are not considered "major literary awards," none of which the book has actually won. - tucoxn\^talk 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cleaned up part of the article, but in the end there just isn't anything to show that this book is particularly notable and the awards aren't big enough to give notability per Wikipedia. I'd recommend redirecting to the author's article, but after cleaning that up in anticipation of redirecting this to there I noticed that he doesn't have any particular assertion of notability either. I've nominated him for deletion here, but if by some chance someone finds sources enough to save his article it can be redirected there. He just doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable, nor does this book, so it's a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found on reliable source giving it a proper review, and added that to the article. That along with the awards, I think makes it notable. Dream Focus 22:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book didn't win any awards - it was merely a finalist or nominated (see ref.). Also, it still hasn't been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself," "won a major literary award," or achieved the other criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books), the applicable notability criteria. - tucoxn\^talk 00:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Yes, it got one review that I found. Surely others out there. Nominated for two notable awards, but didn't win. Good enough to convince me. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify that you believe this 3-sentence "review"[1] is a "proper review", and that you understand that WP:NBOOK #1 requires multiple reviews, and that at least on review must contain serious editorial content. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient reviews for WP:NBOOK #1. Awards are vanity awards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The author Sam Hendricks has an article. If he's notable, we could merge/redirect. But I don't think he is notable, at least based on his article and a quick Google. Any comments on that? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Hendricks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sam Hendricks article was just deleted. As result, it is no longer possible to merge/redirect the Fantasy Football Guidebook article to its author's article. - tucoxn\^talk 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because the sources added to the article are sufficient--Zahid2005 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one "review"[2], if you call 3 sentences a review (more like a notice of publication), and WP:NBOOK #1 requires multiple reviews, which we usually interpret as meaning at least 3 or 4 depending on the quality and depth - it could be only two if the NYT and LA Times full-length reviews for example. Also the review is very brief and like sales jargon ("the perfect gift"), NBOOK requires at least one review to have editorial content that says something more than just a book summary. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is only one review, if that even counts (which given the extreme brevity and lack of in-depth coverage, I would argue no) which is not enough to meet the requirements for WP:NBOOK. 76.91.27.159 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (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.