Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamonds are For Cocktails

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 Zarah (entertainer)#Writing career. Star Mississippi 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds are For Cocktails[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Very little coverage, it's either passing mentions or press releases. Mooonswimmer 18:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The short description on Zarah should be plenty. A few sentences could be added to it and perhaps a redirect if someone was so inclined, but this book does not warrant its own article. Chagropango (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah (entertainer)#Writing career. There's no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject as far as I can tell, but a redirect seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion. I suppose it's possible that the book could receive coverage in the future (it was only published last month); if that happens, then the redirect can simply be reverted at that time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah (entertainer)#Writing career. The book seems to be relatively new. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a reasonable WP:ATD and to leave room for expansion. Archrogue (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Οἶδα (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There isn't really enough coverage of the book to justify it having its own article. There is some mention, but it's in passing at best or press releases at worst. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There isn't independent coverage of this in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2022 (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.