Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bhikshu Nagarjuna (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 15 October 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse

Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse (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)

The gist of this nomination is that while the books have sold well, neither Founders nor Survivors have received enough coverage in reliable and independent sources to show notability enough to pass WP:NBOOK. I'd previously redirected them to the main article, but those redirects were reverted. There was an argument that making the NYT Bestseller list extended notability enough for an article, but at most the NYT list is seen more as a trivial source and not really anything that would show notability enough for an entry. Of both articles, the only sources out there are for primary sources such as the author's blog and a link to the NYT bestseller listings. If anyone can find sources that are in reliable places, I'm open to suggestion but ultimately the coverage for these specific books (as opposed to coverage of the author as a whole) is not enough to show notability and hasn't been in sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

Survivors: A Novel of the Coming Collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, that notability is not inherited. Very, very few people are so notable that all of their creations gain notability by extension. I'd say that less than about 5% of all creators are so notable that they'd get to that level of notability per Wikipedia.(And that's anyone who made anything, whether it's an invention, a book, speech, artwork, you name it.) The biggest thing about people of that level of notability is that while the rules do state that their books and whatnot can gain notability by extension, it's generally accepted that anyone of that level of notability would have more than enough coverage for all of their creations to merit individual articles. Rawles isn't at that level of notability. Heck, I've seen Stephen King articles deleted for lack of coverage and he's pretty much a household name, meaning that he isn't at that level of notability just yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no consensus that best-seller imparts notability. There was a proposal at one time, but never achieved consensus. Best-seller is not part of the equation at the moment. I did find one interesting article that puts it into context.
Murphy, Kim. "Survivalists head for the hills; Author James Wesley Rawles looks to the future and sees trouble. He's urging Americans to prepare". The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 03 Mar 2012: C.1.
It's in ProQuest commercial database (ID 926245668). It mentions the Survivors book above and would count as an OK source but not enough alone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I remember seeing that one somewhere, but it talks more about the series and author as a whole if I'm thinking about the right one. That's been one of the bigger problems I had when searching for sources- they were either primary or about the entire series as a whole, mentioning the individual books so briefly that it could be argued that when applied to notability for specific books, as opposed to an article focusing solely on the individual book, it would be mostly trivial. (Yeesh, sometimes I think that trying to keep up with all of the loopholes and intricacies of RS and GNG is just prepwork for law school.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [1] This is a very brief mention and is more about the author than the actual book, so it'd be trivial at most.
  2. [2] This is a primary sources, which can never show notability. Generally speaking, primary sources aren't supposed to be used unless it can be backed up with multiple independent and reliable sources, meaning that it should be unnecessary to use them.
  3. [3] This is a merchant site, which never shows notability and can't be used as a reliable source. I'll also be honest when I say that Amazon sales ranks mean nothing when it comes to notability on Wikipedia.
  4. [4] This is just a re-listing of various sales ranks on PW, which wouldn't show notability. It also doesn't seem to actually list the book in question either.
  5. [5] Another merchant site, which isn't supposed to be used as a reliable or even trivial source. The type of trivial material it'd back up almost never needs to be backed up by a source and as far as for reviews, the customer reviews don't count towards notability and since it's fairly common for merchant sites to edit reviews from reliable sources, we can't use it to back up any other reviews even if they were on there.
  6. [6] This is the same thing from the first bit and as such, has the same issues of not really showing notability for this particular book.
  7. [7] This is an interview, but it's not done through what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Let me stress that this is by Wikipedia's standards, which is often a source of frustration for a lot of us that try to source articles for books that aren't as mainstream as Twilight or Harry Potter. It can be a source that's respected in the various groups of people that read or do some things, but that doesn't mean it's considered a RS via Wikipedia's standards.
  8. [8], [9] These go to various pages but not to actual blurbs for the book. Even if they did, they'd have to be people that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source and again- just because someone is associated with a station or writes doesn't automatically mean that they're a RS. Again, this is one of the more frustrating points of trying to source a non-mainstream article.
  9. [10] This is just a guest page for Rawles. If you could link to the actual interview this could show notability, BUT I must stress that this would be the only source for the book so far and we'd need more than one source.
  10. [11] Goodreads is never usable as a reliable source and the amount of reviews at any place, whether it's Amazon or Goodreads, mean nothing as far as notability goes. The amount of reviews in places like that don't count because quite frankly, they're easy to make and the people are almost never notable enough for their reviews to count via Wikipedia's standards. I'm not saying these specific reviews are fake, but you have other authors who have done this in various venues, such as Robert Stanek. He's infamous for creating hundreds of fake reviews. Customer reviews don't count is pretty much the whole story here.
  11. [12] Same thing goes for here- this is just a list of average reviews by non-notable people and it doesn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now here's the sources for Survivors: [13]: The book is mentioned, but only in passing. The main brunt of the article's focus is on the author and to show notability about the book, it'd have to focus on the book. This is also what the problem was for the Vancouver article: from what I could see from it, the focus of the article was on the author and not on the book. This was my biggest issue when looking for sources. As far as the other sources go, one is for the NYT bestseller list, which cannot show notability, and the others go to primary sources, which also can't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just updated the link to the George Noory interview with a link to the MP3 file of the interview itself. It is a 2 hour interview. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ with your first point. Having any book included in the New York Times Book Reviews Sunday magazine is NOT "trivial." It is considered prestigious, and often "makes or breaks" the success of newly-released books in the US and Canada. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher's Weekly compiles their own lists that are independent of the New York Times lists. (Hence the different ranking #.) The reason that the book does not show at that link is because the site "hides" the top-ranked books in the archived editions of their pages, to get people to buy a subscription to their site. I 'spose this reference should be replaced to a hardcopy reference, rather than a URL. I will do so. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, the mention of the book is insanely brief in the NYT Book Reviews article. It's only a brief mention of the book, with the book not being the focus of the section of the article about the author. The thing about RS is that it has to actually be about the book to show notability for it. The book is mentioned as a one-off, with the author getting the focus. As far as lists of book sales go, it doesn't matter who compiles them, lists of book sales never contribute towards notability. If the NYT Bestseller lists don't count towards notability then anything Publishers Weekly compiles surely won't, just saying.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You stated: "....lists of book sales never contribute towards notability..." That is a matter of opinion, not a wiki rule. When best seller lists were recently discussed for notability, there was no clear consensus. About half of the editors thought that best seller lists DO confer notability.DiligenceDude (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen an article kept based solely on the fact that a book got on the NYT bestseller list. I've also never seen anyone successfully argue that being on the list completely infers notability. It doesn't give notability at this point in time. That's just not how it currently works. If you want to argue to get that changed, please do so. It'd make my job a lot easier here. HOWEVER, this isn't the place to do it and no bestseller list will show notability. It doesn't matter how many editors think that bestseller lists show notability, unless there is a clear consensus that they do, they can't be used as a source for notability and will always remain a trivial source at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for complying with WP:BK, which requires only that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." There is no doubt that these books have been the subject of multiple reviews by various websites, radio commentators, etc. It's worth noting that WP:BK does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is inappropriate for those supporting the AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. Nevertheless, the New York Times Sunday Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WBZ, and WSPD have their own pages here on Wikipedia, so they must be notable. These sources, plus many other works in sources such as EMPAct radio and Night Owl Reviews, are surely sufficient to prove notability according to the community's agreed-upon standard as clearly defined in WP:BK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.212.53 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 50.135.212.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Actually, there is a requirement for reliable sources. It's one of the most basic policies out there and can be read at WP:RSTokyogirl79 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the other thing about the links to the reviews supposedly done by the other places is that we didn't actually have a link to where these reviews, just to the basic website. We have no way of knowing how the review stated, whether the review was about this book or about the author's work in general, or really anything beyond a vague claim of them praising the book. It's one of the main reasons why none of the author blurbs on jackets for the mainstream books usually make it onto the articles for various books. There's more to it of course, but the main gist of it is that we have nothing to actually link to as far as the review goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear, so clear that the author is very notable and so are all of his books. He is one of the world's experts on preparedness and all of his books are widely read, particularly by preppers. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines), since the prepper movement is mostly a web phenom. Signing, OnlySwissMiss (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of his books, Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse is notable enough by Wikipedia standards to deserve a standalone article. If Survivors and Founders had sources like Patriots, I would vote keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with above "Keeps", I reiterate that James Wesley Rawles is the most well-known author of survivalist-prepper non-fiction and fiction books and is indeed notable as are all of his books since they are both on New York Times Bestseller list and Amazon.com Top Ten. All four of Rawles books have been published in audio format by Audible.com http://www.audible.com/search/ref=pd_auth_1?searchAuthor=James+Wesley%2C+Rawles and suggests notability of his books. This is not the case with many authors to have four books published with Audible. Keep since it does indeed comply with WP:BK, which insists that only "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Don't forget that WP:BK does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is not reasonable for those persons suggesting AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. The majority of reviews for Rawles 4 books are indeed web-based, since the Preparedness -Survivalist Movement is mostly a web phenomena. In addition to many web sites, that I could list if one wishes it. Notable non-web sources are New York Times Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WSPD, and WBZ - notable since each have their own Wikipedia pages. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines or radio-TV interviews), since the prepper movement is strongly a web/blog phenomena. Signing as an [| Wiki Inclusionist], Jefferson Franklin

Keep: The author is one of the most notable voices in the preparedness community and Founders has been one of the best selling novels in the survivalist/preparedness genre. Gerald Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.212.119 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 184.56.212.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I must stress again, that the author being notable does not transfer all of that notability to his works. Very very few authors are so overwhelmingly notable that all of their books gain that notability. Rawles is not that notable. Not by a long shot, no matter how much you feel like he is. Also, being published (aka "it exists") is not a sign of notability. Many books exist, but that doesn't give them notability either. Being on any merchant's top ten list also doesn't give notability either. That's not how notability works here and ultimately most of these arguments fall under the premise of WP:ILIKEIT and none of these arguments are actually the type of things that keep an article. I also must stress that WP:NBOOK has the same requirements for reliable sources as anything else on Wikipedia does. None of the sources on the article are considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules. Trust me, if WP:NBOOK wasn't held under the same strict restrictions as everything else on Wikipedia, I'd have a lot more book related articles that were kept on Wikipedia. You can't reinterpret these rules to keep something just because you like it! Existing through any publisher does not give notability. Being a top seller does not gain notability. Being reviewed by people on Amazon or Goodreads does not give notability. Being reviewed by reliable sources might, but only if you can actually give a link to the review that's not on a primary site. I notice that there's a lot of new users coming in here to put in "keep" statements, and I know that as such, most of you are unaware of how Wikipedia works. I highly recommend that you re-read WP:NBOOK and WP:RS to get more familiar with how notability and reliable sources actually work. Also be aware that this is not decided on a vote and that no matter how many people you send over here to vote, these things are decided on the strength of the arguments. So far no one has really given a good argument, just variations of "I like it so it's notable" mixed in with an incorrect reading of notability rules. Let me put it to you this way: if GreenCardamon, one of the most enthusiastic inclusionists on Wikipedia, has trouble justifying keeping this article, then the sources here really aren't enough to keep either article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Deleting the wiki pages for best-seller novels goes against the basic premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. A agree with Jimmy. We aren't editing Tinypedia here. There are no space limitations. Chipenge (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Founders:_A_Novel_of_the_Coming_Collapse&oldid=517924509"