Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etchings in the Dead Wax

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Given the amount of discusion and Keep votes I thought this would be a difficult decision - however, there is no evidence at all for notability, no references, and no assertion of notability in the article. SilkTork *YES! 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etchings in the Dead Wax

Etchings in the Dead Wax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable self-published book. This was prodded, with the tag removed by the creator. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that this book passes any of the relevant notability criteria. (The author notes that it sold 1000 copies in the first 8 months, which while nice for him/her, doesn't really prove notability). Bfigura (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I found nothing on google news or books. Polarpanda (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contest-Deletion, first in regards to user Polarpanda's comments; The book is included in google and is listed on over 5000 reputible booksellers worldwide including many noteable sellers such as Amazon, Chapters, Booktopia, and Barnes and Noble. In regards to user Bfigura comments; Article is noteable and meets many of the wiki noteability requirements listed in relevant notability criteria. The novel has 3 unique ISBN's. The book is listed through Ingram books in print. The book is available in many libraries across Canada and through Library and Archives Canada (see the following link for an example: http://catalogue.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12V33228D404R.15077&profile=hpl&uri=link=3100006~!2153534~!3100001~!3100043&aspect=subtab431&menu=search&ri=2&source=~!horizon&term=Etchings+in+the+dead+wax+%2F&index=ALLTITL#focus. The book also has a library of congress control number for US Libraries. The book was reviewed and accepted with Library Bound in Canada. In creating this article the author of the novel was contacted and he supplied sales reports showing over 1000 copies sold. Bfigura notes this does not denote noteability however research on many third party websites confirms this is extremely unique for a self-published book especially one by a Canadian author and certainly stirs public interest and defines the very essence of a noteable work. Although one of these many reasons does not stand as noteability, altogether these show the book is unique in its area of publication and confirm noteability for inclusion with wiki. asb2009 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No one's arguing that the book doesn't exist, or whether it's been listed by LoC or anyone else. We're simply stating that according to our criteria, it simply doesn't qualify as a notable book (or really even constitute a borderline case). While selling 1,000 copies might be a nice personal accomplishment for a self-published author (I'm unsure of why being Canadian would make a difference), it doesn't make the book notable in any way, shape, or form. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find no coverage of the title in any independent sources after searching Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest databases. Not even a trivial mention. I see no indication that the book has won a major literary award. With no mentions at all found in any sources available to me, it is a safe assumption that those sources do not consider the book to have made a "significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Google search for title limiting to domain .edu brings no results, indicating the book is not the subject of instruction at any, never mind multiple, institutions of learning. Searches for author's name in same sources yield identical results, indicating author is not of sufficient notability that any of his written works may be considered notable. The book therefore fails all criteria of WP:BK. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: According to this search, the book appears not to have been cataloged by the Library and Archives Canada. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It takes a publisher an average of 6 months to submit lists to library archives from publication date. It then take up to as much as 12 months for the Government of Canada Archives to be updated on-line from the hard files. Book was released less than a year ago, therefore couldn't possible be listed on a government website yet. It is however obviously in the Canadian archives and library system based on the aforementioned link provided. . -- [[User:Asb2009| (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BK. Self-published books are virtually never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contest-Deletion comments noted by Asb2009. Fact checked and confirmed. Agree this displays firm notability. Article also conveys public interest. Starblind’s comment appears judgmental and with prejudice and provides no factual support. As an author myself who has published both traditionally and self-published books I see no relevance in the above deletion comments to affirm the article’s lack of notability. Many self-published works are included as wiki articles. Firmly suggest inclusion to avoid bias deletion.candycorn77 (talk) 15.31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is indeed a non-notable self-published book. The key point is that it's non-notable, irrespective of being self-published. Until the book gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources (or meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOKS like being recognized as influential), it is just not encyclopedically notable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suggest keeping article. Although Internet sourcing appears to be abundant however mostly retail oriented, the book has been the subject of notable print media here in Canada outside virtual sourcing. It seems unjustifiable to suggest deletion of an article when every one of the users that have suggested deletion did so immediately after the article was launched making it almost impossible to do the appropriate research required to provide valid insight and reason for the articles deletion. In keeping with wiki's guidelines and standards an article should first have the opportunity to receive unbiased contributions to strengthen the article before ever considering it for deletion. The novel was subject to an international book tour in North America upon release with appearances in bookstores in almost all major Canadian cities and some US cities. The author is also quite famous in Canada in underground extreme professional sports circles of which a vast multitude of print articles, interviews, and photographs exist which pre-date the internet hence their lack of virtual availability. The article is well written in its subject and insightful despite lack of 3rd party virtual sourcing. Please do not make WP:Battles and WP:POINTs by nominating articles for deletion. swissmark (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)— swissmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Book appears to be quite notable as is the author. Found these articles which convey public interest and diverse notability: Book reading in USA http://eventful.com/buffalo/events/m-c-joudrey-/E0-001-022912770-9 - Online news coverage http://www.oakvilletoday.ca/news/article/267507 - In store book reading USA http://artvoice.com/issues/v8n35/literary_buffalo/lit_city - Autograph signing event in Toronto www.paradisecomics.com (this website also has a profile of the author as well)- There is also a series of articles about the author but no need to fill the screen here. Certainly appears to meet wiki notability criteria. jackson5alive (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)— jackson5alive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Notable. Novel and the author appear to be known throughout North America. Novel appears to have valid third party interest including Library cataloguing. The author also appears to host an online radio broadcast called the Vinyl Theatre creating public interest and directly relates to the novels content, this was revealed in a google search. Another google search revealed that the author and novel are featured on a well known Toronto artists conglomerate called the Beach Leslieville Artists. It is contrary to wiki policy to be nominated for deletion instantly after creation, noted in "WP:BEFORE" Suggest article full reinstatement and offer wikians an opportunity to research further and improve what could possibly be a very worthy article. blackvanillabean (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)— blackvanillabean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Not really. WP:BEFORE makes no claim that articles can't be deleted after creation, only that they should be fixed if they can, as deletion isn't cleanup. However, as I've asserted in a few places above, this isn't a fixable issue. This book simply isn't notable - it doesn't meet the notability standard for books, or the general notability guideline. The links provided so far show that the book exists, that the author has done a signing, and an in-store reading. All of those things are considered to be trivial coverage in terms of notability. What is required, and hasn't been shown is that multiple, non-trivial reliable sources discuss the subject in some detail. This simply doesn't appear to be the case. -- Bfigura (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is better to find some reliable sources and develop the article. If all the unresourced articles in Wikipedia were to be deleted, Wikpedians could not develop it as rapidly as they can now. Zohairani (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encouragement: Yes, the article was put up for deletion very quickly. There is, however, still time to produce evidence of notability, which is the main argument against the subject's inclusion. This is the beauty of AFD. Time is being allowed to demonstrate that the article meets criteria for inclusion. Searches by parties suggesting deletion is the proper course have indicated that no sources exist to demonstrate notability, and the links provided so far by those arguing for inclusion have not been sufficient demonstrate notablity. There are claims here of paper sources. These can be cited just as online sources can. this page may serve as a guide. If the sources are verifiable and establish notability, the article should stand in good stead. This editor agrees that none of the links provided so far is sufficient to establish notability. This editor would love to see a book review, especially from a non-local source. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In reality not much time at all. It is certainly easy to select what is most likely a viable and valuable article with sincere public interest for deletion noted by another user above. It appears that there is quite a large amount of evidence being provided to confirm this article's notability and little, if any, evidence to refute it other than relation to what user Jimmy Wales notes about quality articles listed for deletion: "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion." or "I've decided this ones not notable." I am not sure how any user can assume they have heard of everything. I would also be deeply concerned with wiki's validity as an online encyclopedia if this article were slated for deletion as more and more evidence surfaces to support "notability". Over time who knows how many perspective wikian's could contribute in a meaningful way to this article. See the following best of list: http://www.amazon.ca/Notable-Self-Published-books-2009/lm/R33SEOX3UESUBO/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_alt_1 -- [[User:Asb2009| (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.194.35 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep, IUniverse has a wiki article. Book was published by IUniverse. Many other POD published novels appear as notable wiki articles. Zarc9999 (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — Zarc9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Sounds like the book is worth having an article here.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion, it does. In yours it does not. No problem with that! :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, it doesn't. What sources in that search do you think shows notability? Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the links in that search show the book has received considerable attention. I think it meets the requirements of WP:N, however from the article in Wikipedia and the description of the book, I think the book must be full of boring nonsense which doesn't worth wasting time, reading it. lol --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with last user talk. When an item or person of interest generates many pages in any search engine, despite their content in whole or in part, displays considerable notability. --Asb2009 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some misunderstanding of what "considerable attention" or "non-trivial mention" means. The amazon link above is just a user-generated link, not an amazon sales ranking, so it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. And the google search just turns up a number of SEO-type sites that briefly mention the book. -- Bfigura (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that the user who tagged this article as an AfD is calling the shots. It is also very clear that a decision to delete the article was made from the very beginning despite the pretence of "open discussion". Many wikians have weighed in to keep the article, but they have done so in obvious futility. There is no open discussion option only the pretense of open discussion. The argument presented by the party(s) to delete is that the novel is not notable despite a multitude of various sources of evidence that the book is quite prevalent worldwide. The user also keeps quoting that the article doesn't qualify WP:RS, it does in fact qualify just not that user's points of interest. So the book doesn't have a movie made of it, and it didn't win the Pulitzer, it is still an obvious point of public interest and quite reputable with irrefutable internet and print presence which is obvious from the buzz above. The decision to delete seems a sad case of "I aint never heard of it before and I don't like what I see." Smells like selective censorship to me. --Asb2009 (talk) 09.05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Etchings_in_the_Dead_Wax&oldid=1148811700"