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. I see a consensus now to Keep this article but this article still needs a lot of work that I hope participants can help with given these new sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. 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 can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Housden, Ellie (2006-08-19). "books kids". The Courier-Mail. ProQuest 354009468. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

     The review provides 243 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Initiation isn't as wholesome as some teenage fiction; there's some drinking and suggestions of lust that have nothing to do with blood. But the moral of the story is that modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery."

  2. Jacob, John (Fall 2006). "Vampire Beach: Bloodlust" (PDF). The Alan Review. Vol. 34, no. 1. p. 41. EBSCOhost 507925514. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

     The review provides 171 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "This is a well-written tale of school life in Malibu, and this book is only one in a series of books about Jason and his sister, Dani, and their “friends” in the high school where they have come to live. ... Only rogue vampires kill and, of course, Jason must confront both the rogue and his competition at school, in a tale that is meant to flow into other stories."

  3. McGarvey, Paul (2006-08-12). "Bookshelf: Vampire Beach: Bloodlust, by Alex Duval". South Wales Argus. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review provides 146 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "For the large part, Duval makes no such attempt to do anything original with this Lost Boys-meets-the-OC tale of beautiful immortals in sunny Malibu. ... Towards the end of the novel, Duval takes a great many liberties with the vampire mythology, none of which I can reveal here without spoiling the plot. However, this is an enjoyable enough and breezy read for fans of trashy teen fiction."

  4. Squires, Lorraine (August 2006). "Paperback Series Roundup". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 3. p. 236. EBSCOhost 502888926.

     The article provides 97 words of coverage. The article notes: "Another twist on the lives of the young and fabulous comes from Vampire Beach, a series that owes a debt to both Beverly Hills 90210 and R. L. Stine. Jason Freeman moves with his parents and younger sister from Michigan to exclusive Malibu Beach, where he falls in with the super-rich, super-hot, popular crowd. But partying has a truly dark side--a girl turns up dead with suspicious bite marks, and Jason discovers that beautiful people can be deadly. This take on vampire myth will drive purists crazy, but might sell well to A-List and The OC fans."

     The article lists the books in the series:

     Vampire Beach by Alex Duval. Simon Pulse/S & S. 3Q 4P J S

     Bloodlust, Book One. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1166-9.

     Initiation, Book Two. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1167-7.

  5. Atkinson, Frances (2006-12-17). "Big Books - Small Readers - Book Review". The Age. ProQuest 367472866. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

     The review provides 81 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "This second book in the Vampire Beach series is unashamedly cheesy but who can resist the winning combination of Malibu, wealthy teens, seduction and vampires? Jason, the new kid in town, falls for sultry Sienna Devereux as his friend Tyler becomes involved with the "wrong crowd" (the sort that have fangs). Brimming with teen-speak and popular culture references, Initiation is the book you can't wait to read on the beach, although you may have to leave it buried in the sand."

  6. "Vampire Beach: Initiation". The Bookseller. No. 5234. 2006-06-16. p. 36. EBSCOhost 21394113.

     The review provides 48 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Return to the glamour and intrigue of DeVere High, where the cool crowd are in fact the undead and bloodsucking has never been so cool. I can't help loving these books, they are out-rageously addictive, super cool, and as sharp as a wooden stake right to the heart."

  7. Fonseca, Tony (2011). "Young Adult Vampire Fiction". In Joshi, S. T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 415–416. ISBN 978-0-313-37833-1. ProQuest 2134512314. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Google Books.

     The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In the last five years, the number of YA vampire series has skyrocketed. Popular series include ... the Vampire Beach series by Alex Duval (Bloodlust [2006], Initiation [2006], Ritual [2007], and Legacy [2007]); ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vampire Beach to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of this looks like plot recap, with a few quotable quotes that maybe express some kind of feeling/opinion.

• Sure, Housden 2006 provides 235 words of coverage in theory, but all but 46 of those words are straight plot recap and are pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes. And as far as analysis goes, I don't exactly find modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery. to be inspiring. (That's half of what i'm calling 'analysis'.)
• Jacob 2006 is actually pretty good, although them putting the town after the name makes me feel like it's reader submitted.
• McGarvey 2006 is also mostly plot recap, not SIGCOV.
• Can't access Squires 2006.
• Atkinson 2006 is a small paragraph in large font with barely anything useful in it.
• Can't access The Bookseller.
• C'mon, Fonseca 2011 clearly isn't SIGCOV.

Taken together, I think calling these the basis for an article would ultimately yield an article that ignores a lot of best practices – like citing sources that make an effort, instead of the routine 75-word book review mill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American newspaper The Courier-Mail, the American journal The Alan Review, the Welsh newspaper South Wales Argus, the American magazine Voice of Youth Advocates, the Australian newspaper The Age, and the British magazine The Bookseller are not "book review mill[s]". These are all respected publications. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says a book is notable when it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The notability guideline for books does not say that "straight plot recap" are "pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes". In fact, there was a strong consensus in the August 2023 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability against amending the notability guideline to add this text:

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

Until and unless the notability guideline is changed to exclude the plot summary parts of sources from contributing to significant coverage, they do contribute to significant coverage. These sources contain sufficient independent analysis and commentary that decent-sized sections that go beyond plot summary can be written at Vampire Beach#Background and Vampire Beach#Reception. Jacob 2006 is not reader submitted. According to the Winter 1994 issue of the journal, John Jacob was an Associate Professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The excerpts Cunard posted are the entirety of the coverage Squires 2006 and The Bookseller (accessible via TWL here) provides of this series. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to have a notability criteria for book series. Out of all the reviews Cunard posted, I'd only consider the first three (and maybe 4/5, but its a bit shaky) to provide sufficient coverage to count towards NBOOK. The problem is most (not 4) of them are reviewing the individual books, not the series. If this were an AfD for an individual book, then two would be enough, but since this is for the series, do we still need only 2 for notability, and if so, do they have to be coverage of the overall series? Or is reviews for a decent portion of the series enough to justify a series article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet on whether the sources cited provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There was previous discussion about series at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 8#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?. In the AfD that prompted that discussion, ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs) made this comment:

  There has been precedent in the past with AfDs that the notability for individual parts of a series can establish notability for the main parent series - even if the sourcing for those books do not go into depth about the overall series. You can see my above comments for further detail, but the gist is that since these books are part of the whole, coverage for the novels can be seen as coverage for the whole since each book builds on the existing storyline. Merging everything into a single article for the first book would run the risk of putting undue weight on the series or providing incomplete coverage when more sourcing is available and a more reasonable compromise would be to have a main series page.

  The argument for whether or not series can gain notability for their individual pieces is something that should absolutely be discussed at NBOOK before the article is deleted. (If the consensus of that is that there must be individual coverage, then of course this should be renominated.) To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature. Not all of it, but quite a bit, so if this is going to happen we need to discuss it first. GNG is not a one size fits all scenario and this is one of those areas where NOTINHERITED, in my opinion, does not apply. It would only apply if we were to argue that the series is notable because some of Weber's other series are notable. Arguing that series can only be notable if there is specific coverage of the whole feels a little like it's defeating Wikipedia's purposes, to be honest because it feels like we're arguing that a whole person cannot become notable because the coverage only covers what they can do with their hands and feet. Plus from a deletionist's perspective the series page is more efficient because then we eliminate the need for individual series pages as the main series page covers the books far more efficiently. (To be perfectly honest, I think most series should have only one main series page and not individual book articles unless there is a large amount of coverage to justify this.)

  Based on this analysis, I think it's reasonable to cover all of these books in a series article. The books have received varying levels of coverage. Vampire Beach: Bloodlust and Vampire Beach: Initiation both pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, but the other books in the series do not pass it. Rather than creating two separate small articles about the two notable books in the series (and not discussing the other books in the series at all), it better serves readers to cover them all in a series article. This position aligns with Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Merging to broader subjects, which says:

  In some situations, editors decide that a separate article about a book, regardless of whether the book is notable, is not the best choice. The main alternatives include merging the content about a book to an article about the author, to an article about a book series (if it is part of a series), or to a list. ... Similarly, a single article giving an overview of a whole book series (e.g., the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories or the Aubrey–Maturin series) may be preferable to having separate articles about individual books in the series.

  Cunard (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote to keep. Good job Cunard in finding those - they completely evaded me when I searched! I also do agree that a book series article would be the best option here. My stance on the series has always been that if we can find enough sourcing, to keep a book article. I absolutely agree that we do need to have a bit at NBOOK that either covers series or a notability guideline for series as a whole. My stance at the above discussion was that we double or triple the amount of sourcing needed for a series article, as a way of being more discerning. I've written enough series articles to know that if a series is truly non-notable, it won't have the coverage. I've tried making articles for relatively popular series (in their genre) that didn't gain enough coverage to even justify a series page.

In any case, steering this back to the article at hand, Cunard was able to find 7 sources. Some of them might seem short or heavy on the summary, but as far as I know there hasn't been any sort of definitive discussion as far as what is or isn't usable as a source. Length can impact what is seen as usable sometimes, but that's often for reviews that are 1-2 sentences long overall (ie, not even any summary). It also helps that the sources Cunard brought up are outlets seen as pretty solid otherwise - the only one I'd see as obviously trivial would be the Joshi source, since that's a one line mention. VOYA is probably one of the next shortest, but they're seen as a pretty good source. The organization had ties to the ALA and while they reviewed quite a bit, they were always a bit discerning. I say all of this in past tense, as VOYA was one of the many outlets and organizations that went under during the COVID-19 pandemic. The resulting sourcing isn't as strong as I'd like, but I think it's enough to justify a series article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. Well argued. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:45, 6 January 2025 (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.