Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daisy Chain (historical novel)

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 delete. Clearly does not been NBOOK, as everyone agrees but the author of the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Daisy Chain (historical novel)[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). I added the {{Notability}} tag to the article on July 12, 2012. At that time, I looked on Google but found only a handful of reader reviews (repeated verbatim on several websites). I also started a discussion on the article's Talk page. HairyWombat 19:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. It fails WP: NBOOKS and I shouldn't have accepted it from AFC in the first place. My bad. Electric Catfish 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Part of the article seems to be copyvio from the author's Goodreads account Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. Hmm... I have good reason to suspect that this was added by someone getting paid to create Wikipedia articles- you might want to look into the editor's other articles as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent and reliable sources out there to show notability for this book or its author. I'm also rather suspicious that this is one of many articles put up by an editor that's getting paid to create articles, so an admin might want to check into this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per all comments above (consensus is 100% in favour of deletion so I'm a little puzzled as to why this was relisted, but it never hurts to be 100% clear); I found no reliable sources after an independent search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR OF ARTICLE RESPONDS: Contrary to questions from TokyoGirl and others, I am:

1 Not paid to write any of the articles I wrote

2 I followed Wiki guidelines and submitted this for review and it passed. Why is it now being considered for deletion, after the process has been completed?

3 Historical novels are growing in popularity, as are self-published authors. Several notable authors are self-publishing, as are comedians of their filmed work.

4 I don't feel like the subjective judgment of less than 10 editors, who don't profess to be content experts in this area, is sufficient to delete the work.

5 Additional facts that I want to add to the article: Featured in The Alcalde Magazine, January 2012 Alumni reviews http://alcalde.texasexes.org/

Awarded Deep River Publishing Certificate of Merit http://www.deepriverbooks.com/

In stores among many independent book stores in the hill country including Book Woman. http://www.librarything.com/author/goroserica

Also available in the following Public Library Systems: Brazoria County Buda Burnet County Claud H. Gilmer Memorial DeSoto Harris County Oakalla Pflugerville Community Tawakoni Area Victoria

In less than a year after publication over 1600 copies had been bought or downloaded worldwide. The Daisy Chain is available in France, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Spain, and Italy.

http://www.shelfari.com/books/25416996/The-Daisy-Chain

Thanks for listening. Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 02:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)

Reply:To answer your concerns:

First off there was reasonable doubt to think that you might be a paid editor. Whether you're aware of it or not, there's a lot of people who pay to have articles added to the Wikipedia.
Not every article that is passed through AfC actually passes notability guidelines. I've seen more than one article pass through AfC on sources that are not considered to be reliable and do not show notability. This article is not the first one that would be nominated for deletion despite passing through AfC.
Saying that a novel genre is popular is not a reason to include it on Wikipedia. (WP:LIKE) A genre being popular makes it more likely for there to be reliable sources, but that in itself does not guarantee that a specific book will have those sources. A good example of this is that the urban fantasy genre is popular, but even so not every book would receive a lot of notice. Laurell K Hamilton is one of the most popular authors in the genre right now and even some of her books fail notability guidelines because they didn't get enough coverage in reliable sources.
While I don't profess to be the greatest editor on Wikipedia, I am knowledgeable about what it takes for something to pass WP:NBOOK. I've saved multiple books from deletion in the past and I've added multiple articles about books to Wikipedia. I know where to look for sources and what would be considered a reliable source or not. I'm not the administrator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books or anything, but neither am I a person who has no knowledge of what it takes for an article for a novel to pass notability guidelines. And if I may be so bold, I know more about the qualifications for book notability and reliable sources than you do. This book is not notable.
As far as the sources go, I looked at what you linked. I was unable to find any mention of the book or the author at [ http://alcalde.texasexes.org/ The Alcalde]. As far as the award goes, it's not notable enough to merit keeping the article. Most awards aren't. I'd go so far as to say that out of all of the awards out there, less than 1% are notable enough to where they'd keep an article and bestow notability per Wikipedia's guidelines.
Now as far as "amount of books sold, amount of places it's sold in", that actually doesn't give automatic notability either. You can have a book for sale but that doesn't guarantee notability. Selling a lot might help make it easier to find sources, but again, it doesn't guarantee notability. But as far as books go, 1600 isn't a number so astronomical that it'd give notability. Being available in multiple libraries doesn't guarantee notability either. It's not an argument that you could use to keep the article, in other words. Nothing you have written as far as copy availability shows notability. Notability is shown through multiple independent and reliable sources.

Long story short, despite you adding various things to the article and to this discussion, none of them show the slightest bit of notability. Goodreads does not give notability. Amazon definitely doesn't. The award you mentioned doesn't. (A search brings up nearly no coverage of the award.) Being listed on various merchant sites doesn't. None of this shows notability. End of story.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional': I'm going to bring this up with a few editors just to be fair, but offhand I don't really see where this book has any notability that would keep it from being deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Casey, if you have not yet read Wikipedia:Notability (books) then you need to do so. It was unfortunate that your article came through Articles for Creation but, as you can read above, the editor who passed it now believes they made a mistake. None of your items make the book notable. Specifically, being noted in The Alcade, an alumni magazine, is a start, but what is needed is, "multiple, non-trivial published works". (Also, the reference you give for this does not mention The Daisy Chain; in fact, I cannot find it mentioned anywhere on this website.) The Deep River Publishing Certificate of Merit is not, "a major literary award". This would be the case even if the company was not a vanity publisher. (The website of the company states that it is not a vanity publisher, yet it requires authors to contribute financially. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then .... Again, the reference you give for this does not mention The Daisy Chain; in fact, I cannot find it mentioned anywhere on this website.) Being stocked in stores or public libraries is irrelevant. Sales of 1600 is high for a self published book but otherwise very low and, anyway, sales do not make a book notable; lots of independent reviews do. If the book has been translated into French, German, Japanese, etc, then this would help notability. However, simply being offered for download in English in foreign countries is irrelevant. (The reference you give for this does not appear to mention France, Germany, etc., so it is unclear which of these is the case.) Hope this helps; the key is Wikipedia:Notability (books). HairyWombat 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable source. A piece in the authors alumni mag is not enough. Award is not major. Passing through AFC does not mean the subject is notable, just that the article is a reasonable starting point. I didn't find anything to add to that starting point and no one else has. Falls short of Wikipedia:Notability (books). (I was told about this afd on my talk page). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant literary coverage or awards. --Lquilter (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2012 (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.