Talk:Ghost Radio

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I object to the deletion of this page on the grounds of notability - the basic idea of notability stems from a topic's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, the coverage mentioned in the article is as significant as the coverage on nearly any other book that has an article in wikipedia: the presence of multiple reviews from necessarily reliable sources (Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, etc) that are also definitively independent of the subject. To me this seems like an unnecessary degree of nit-picking, but please continue the discussion and share your viewpoints, or even better, edit/contribute to the article directly. Thank you. JoshEnte (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Reception[edit]

I write here because I removed the following:

James Patterson remarked, "Ghost Radio reminded me of early Stephen King – Carrie and Pet Sematary and The Dead Zone. The story sticks with you long after you've finished the final page."^{[citation needed]}

I did this for two reasons:

1. It's a blurb, which my research indicates should not generally be included

From Help desk archives::

Jacket copy is advertising content, and should never be deemed a reliable source for any substantive matter. Most such quotes were solicited by the publishers, who don't use the less-than-favorable ones.
— User:Orangemike 15:15, 6 July 2009

2. Patterson's Kirkus review is quoted in the next sentence

and I feel this makes the blurb redundant. As an aside, this review actually lends the blurb credibility and would otherwise make it more suitable as a source from the perspective of this great response in the Reliable sources Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archive:

Pure blurbs (eg, praise from the book from someone who hasn't actually reviewed it) should not be repeated in articles as they're not a reliable source on the book - blurbs are generally either a favour to the author from their friends/colleagues or a favour to the publisher from its authors, and are not an independent assessment of the book (though most serious authors won't write a positive blurb about a bad book under any circumstances given that doing so damages their reputation)
— User:Nick-D 11:43, 11 September 2012

I wanted to document all of this because I'd originally set out to address the {{Citation needed}} tag, and my research redirected me to omit the blurb instead. However, I wrote all of this to be transparent about my reasoning in case anyone disagrees, or finds the blurb more compelling of the two Patterson quotes (and also because I'm a relatively new editor)! – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]