Talk:The Trinity Six

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional. It gives a representative selection of reviews from reliable sources. cagliost (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That's how book adverts look. Kleuske (talk)

By the way, this page was nominated for deletion only 1 minute after I created it. I am in the process of adding a plot summary. cagliost (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Strangely, It took less than one minute to read the jubilant blurb. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary and infobox added. cagliost (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PLOT. It's still an advertisement for the book, notability has not been shown. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Article does not conflict with WP:PLOT. Notability is established as per criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books). cagliost (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Three (paywalled) book-reviews do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are routine marketing tools. The fourth was written by the author, for goodness sake. The way you reduce them to marketing blurbs, just emphasizes that point. Kleuske (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Substantial dedicated reviews in the Washington Post, the NYT, the Independent and Kirkus Reviews do constitute significant coverage. Paywall is irrelevant, see WP:PAYWALL. None of the reviews were written by the author. cagliost (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You do realize i nominated it because of those jubilant quotations, don't you? The fact that you attribute them, does not make it any less of a marketing blurb. That text belongs on the back of a paperback edition. It's geared to pique the casual readers interest, and hence promotional. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)