Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Gambit

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Gambit

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

I came across this via a post at the book WikiProject where Marchjuly expressed concern over the series' notability.

A search brings up nothing to show that this self-published series is notable enough for an article. It seems to exist, but per WP:ITEXISTS, existing does not automatically grant notability. From what I can see the series hasn't gained any sort of coverage or reviews from reliable sources, nor has it placed on any of the notable bestseller lists like the NYT. (Merchant lists are specifically excluded from WP:NBOOK.) The sources on the page are entirely unusable, as they're predominantly merchant sources (which are generally considered inappropriate to add to Wikipedia in any format) and the author citing himself - but without any actual links to external sites to back up the claims. There's also a link to Goodreads, but since that site relies very heavily on user submitted materials (it's not that hard to become a librarian and submit material) the site is unusable as even a trivial database-esque source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't see where this passes WP:NBOOK at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tired looking for better sourcing for the series as a whole and for the individual books, but could not find anything at all which provides the significant coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google Books does have some pages about the individual books, but not sure if that is really enough in and of itself to show notability, especially for something which seems to be self-published. I also couldn't find anything on the author other than social media pages and some mentions on Amazon or Goodreads pages, so it doesn't seem as if they would satisfy WP:BASIC making a possible merge of the series article into an author's article unlikely. Will be happy to change !vote if others are able to find better sourcing, but I don't believe such sources appear to exist per item "D" of WP:BEFORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, fails WP:NBOOK, the complete lack of acceptable sources indicates lack of notability, so there is no rationale to keep. Self-published from a not-significant author who states at his website "I have invested a lot of money, time, and effort to bring these to you..." and "They contain a story which Colin thinks is worth the telling and to which task he set his inexperienced hand". --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~new~~ list-article on alternative history book series: List of alternate history fiction#Novel series, specifically to anchor at List of alternative history fiction#Red Gambit. This series sounds interesting to me; so what if an author is contributing an article about the topic; it is hardly likely this person is actually profiting if their time is valued at all, this is NOT a case of commercial promotion of the bad kind. The standard for inclusion of a list-item is lower than that for a standalone list...the standard can be defined by editors at the list-article itself. Redirecting to a list-article (and creating a list-article if needed), rather than deleting, is an under-used, more friendly (i.e. less in-your-face, destructive, newbie-biting) alternative in AFDs. Keeping the edit history in a redirect is a nice compromise that makes the information available for use in editing the list-article. ~~New list-article being drafted at Draft:List of alternative history books, intended to be moved to List of alternative history books.~~ The list-article topic is clearly acceptable and ~~it is surprising to me that there is no such list created yet (though there is a list of winners of an annual award in this area)~~ and in fact it does exist as an article. --do ncr am 15:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It's interesting is not a legitimate argument in deletion discussions, although I like User:doncram's suggested redirect, keeping in mind WP:Source list and WP:LISTN for their inclusion, and that other editors may delete their entries from such a list without suitable citations (although I note that it already has lots of redlinked/no article titles). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks @Doncram: for an alternate perspective. I had already stated in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Red Gambit "I messaged the editor/author - deliberately without a standard warning, recognising a type of newbie, so don't bite - advising as best I could, but didn't want to be presumptive that it would not survive as it's not my usual topic area". Prior to this, on assumption of GF that he thought he was doing right, the author may have (again) tried to write a bio-type article about himself, so I had already considered the past, present and future. But wouldn't your suggestion set a dangerous, although firstly low-profile, precedent considering the first two Google entries? I know there as Google consultants at large and this is one major headache with Wikipedia articles showing high search results. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to argue against redirecting. While it may seem like it'd be a nice thing to do, the overall problem here is that this self-published series has nothing to show that it's ultimately notable enough for an article. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every series ever published and many (if not most) list articles now require that the listed names/topics have articles themselves. This is done in order to keep a list article from becoming a free-for-all where any person who self-publishes could list their book. This means that the list will be forever incomplete and also prone to self-promotion. We've had list pages in the past where there were hundreds of non-notable authors, clubs, books... none of them merited an article and listing all of them actually did more harm than good because it made it that much harder for people to find the notable series - especially since the longer pages made it more difficult for the page to load in general. Limiting list pages to only include series that are notable or have notable authors is pretty much a necessity - especially in situations like this one where it seems unlikely that the series or author will ever become notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. Per the guidelines, this simply fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I agree Tokyogirl79's rationale for non-redirect as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find the coverage necessary for this to pass either GNG or NBOOK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2015 (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.