Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 redirect‎ to Wikipedia in culture#In fiction. What I'm seeing here is a rough consensus that we should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. As we already have content on this in another article and nobody has presented a compelling argument against redirecting it there, it seems like redirecting respects that consensus. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Editors (novel)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Editors (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable new novel that happens to be transparently about Wikipedia editors. Deleted in October following a deletion discussion [1]. Restored to draft in good faith by someone who thought it might become notable. The draft was moved to mainspace by a different editor, unaware of the previous deletion, but who, in page talk, believes it is notable, having added some sources. I disagree. Source analysis below. I also note that we have a curious case of conflict of interest here. This article is about a book about us the editors of Wikipedia. That cannot be helped, but if we do not uphold our standards of notability for a book like this, then that COI will be plain for all to see. If we essentially advertise a new non notable book about Wikipedia editors, then we say advertising such material is okay - as long as it is material about us! So I believe a firm line should be taken on notability standards. As and when it clearly meets WP:NBOOK, it may be included, but it should not be included until that happens.

Source Analysis:

The following are all the sources on the page. They primarily fail for not being independent. I cannot see that any count towards notability. I have collapsed the list for readability.

Source Analysis
  • Numlock News [2]: Previously considered at old AfD. Self published by Walt Hickey. WP:SPS Red XN
  • Studlife (2 of) [3], [4] By Avi Holzman: Washington State University student newspaper. The July article is a Q&A with the author. Clearly not independent. A month later the interviewer wrote a summary of the forthcoming book, and thus this is clearly also not independent. Red XN
  • Inkshares (2 of) [5] [6]: Self publishing platform. WP:SPS. Red XN
  • New America [7]: Publicity blurb from an event announcement. Not independent. Red XN
  • Katy Trail Weekly [8]: This newspaper describes itself as "A community news and lifestyle pieces for the neighborhoods around the Katy Trail in Dallas, Texas" and says "A Turtle Creek resident, Harrison has just released The Editors..." So it is a local news piece about a local author who just published a book. That is WP:MILL. It is specifically excluded by the last sentence of WP:BOOKCRIT criterion 1. Red XN
  • GeekDad [9] Publicity blurb from product/event announcement. Thus not an independent review. Red XN
  • Fantastic Fiction [10]: Book seller's blurb. Not independent. Red XN
  • MyHighPlains [11]: Previously considered at old AfD. A local news station. As for Katy Trail Weekly, this is excluded by WP:BOOKCRIT C1. Red XN
  • The Guardian [12]: This is a piece by Stephen Harrison (the author), about Wikipedia. Clearly not independent. Red XN
  • Yahoo Life [13]: Previously considered at old AfD. Part of the Yahoo for creators programme. WP:FORBESCON was discussed regarding reliability but in any case, based on an interview and thus not independent. Red XN
  • Slate [14]: Lists articles written by the author. Clearly not independent. Red XN
  • Wikpedia20 - MIT Press [15]: by Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison, so clearly not independent. Red XN

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Literature. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging previous attendees of last AfD. Hemiauchenia, CurryTime7-24, Carrite, Yngvadottir, Significa_liberdade Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Pinging the particpants of the AfD that closed last month: @Hemiauchenia:, @CurryTime7-24:, @Carrite:, @Yngvadottir:, @Yngvadottir:, @Significa liberdade:. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is still not a single reliable, non self published book review. A basic requirement for any book to warrant a Wikipedia article. Copying my comment from the last AfD: "Did a WP:BEFORE but I couldn't find enough to unambiguously pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The first source is an interview, which seems questionable as a source of notability for a book. The piece is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure. The second source is a local news station, which I think is of questionable notability. The third source "Numlock News" is a self-published substack blog which as far as I am aware does not count towards notability". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reviews from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, or Library Journal, which many have argued "review everything". I found one review from Novels Alive, though I've never heard of the site. There's also another interview published with Yahoo. If more sources are found, ping me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Best I could find is an Opinion piece in the Washington Post [16], rest of the sources are as discussed in the table above. I still don't think we have book notability, but with one decent review in a RS I'd probably give a weak !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only mentions from sources that are otherwise reliable are unacceptable because they are not independent of the subject. A further search for both author and book still turn up nothing that establishes notability. If the outcome here is again to delete, WP:SALT may be worth considering this time. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source is independent, though not yet used.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per [18] Check Out BookLife, [Publishers Weekly]'s site for self-published authors! BookLife is [Publishers Weekly]'s site dedicated to the world of Self-Publishing. According to [19] BookLife functions like the Kirkus Indie program that Kirkus Reviews has (see WP:KIRKUS), where the author pays to get their book reviewed. It's therefore not independent and does not count towards notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or at least draftify again so as not to lose all the work. I think we need a broader discussion than just the same editors who AFD'ed it last time, but I'll just add a couple of things here, one of which I wrote on the talk page.
    • Per WP:NBOOK, "Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline."
    • Geekdad and Katy Trail Weekly are independent sources, and the interview on WFAA currently in External links is an independent source. Harrison is also interviewed on this source (see 1A (radio program)), along with WP editors who discuss issues relating to editing Wikipedia and presenting information.
I just don't see the point of deleting something that can be useful to readers of Wikipedia. Anyone reading the book would expect to find it on Wikipedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful."
WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the criterion from WP:NBOOK does not apply here. This is an AfD, not speedy deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the new source you mention, the 1A radio program, is an interview, so not independent. It does not count towards notability. And to note, you are the editor who moved this back to mainspace.[20] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a rule preventing me from commenting, please let me know. I explained on the talk page why I improved and moved the article, being unaware of a previous afd.
There are hundreds of biographies using interviews as sources. It is an independent source if it is not paid or solicited, or in any way connected to or emanating from the subject. This one indicates that the topic is being reported by an independent media outlet. Obviously not to be used to quote the interviewee saying how wonderful the book is, but there's nothing to prevent its use as a source of neutral info about the book. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are very welcome to comment - expected even. I was merely noting the fact. A book that uses an interview as part of its research also provides analysis, detail and research beyond the interview. A radio interview is just an interview. An author interview about his book is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Have been offline; now have limited access.) As I believe I said at the previous AfD, the article can be recreated when there are independent sources to establish the book's notability. I've read carefully through the discussion of sources here and I also don't see evidence that that requirement has been met. Sources with information about the book, such as interviews with the author, are only useful Laterthanyouthink's argument) if the book itself meets the notability threshhold to have an article, or if it can usefully be mentioned in another article (on the author, on books about Wikipedia ...). Otherwise, first things first. Wikipedia can't have an article on every book published. It needs evidence of notability: at least 2 solid independent reliable sources. I don't advocate draftification because we risk this just happening again; and more kimportantly, because if/when the book does become notable, the article should then be written based mostly on the independent sources about it. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I agree that Substack publications are worth essentially nothing from a notability perspective as they are self-published sources, I disagree with the characterization of GeekDad as a “publicity blurb from product/event announcement” and Katy Trail Weekly as WP:MILL. There is a specific carveout in NBOOK criterion 1 stating that it can be satisfied by "...published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." Both of these are, quite clearly, reviews and newspaper articles, respectively.
GeekDad: Nowhere is it advertising a product or an event; it is a double book review that is a secondary source independent of the subject in accordance with NBOOK. Taking the source characterization as quoted at its most charitable, that could be easily interpreted to include any review ever of anything because reviews do tend to be read by people and potentially used in a purchasing/listening/consuming decision (as applicable). This is in direct contradiction of NBOOK and a conjecture as severe as that is worth its own RfC and this AfD is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion. One could also argue, using that logic, that any media coverage of almost anything is just publicity because it raises public awareness of X topic and, therefore, media coverage itself is not a basis for notability…and we’ve just blown up a fundamental pillar of GNG.
Katy Trail Weekly: It is a front page story “above the fold”. Calling a newspaper’s front-page top story MILL is probably a bit of a stretch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a front page story in a freely distributed local newspaper serving Katy Trail, Uptown, Turtle Creek and Highland Park neighbourhoods of Dallas. The piece is subtitled "Local Author". That is not going to be an independent review. The local paper was approached and carried the piece because the author is local, not because the book was what caught their attention. They even say that in the titling and in the article. If we accept reviews like this for notability of books then every single published book is notable. Local papers always run such pieces. We absolutely should not be taking such run of the mill reporting as in indication of notability of a book. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note - I would agree with GeekDad being a review and a usable RS. My reasons are as follows:
GeekDad has been seen as a RS in the past. Jonathan Liu is a senior editor for the site - has his own email address and everything. In the opening paragraph of the source Liu mentions reading the book. The coverage for The Editors is five paragraphs long.
Now, he does mention that he was given review copies of the books. This is extremely, EXTREMELY common with reviewers. Very few reviewers or media outlets purchase their own copies of a book. Mentioning the review copy is a requirement for transparency purposes and is not a sign that he was paid to write a nice review about the book. Liu does have an affiliate link for Bookshop.org, but this is also something that's pretty normal to see on most review outlets. Even the NYT has this in their reviews. He's not getting paid by the publisher, in any case. It's very different from a sponsored post, which is when the publisher pays an outlet to write nice things about them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted, Redirect to Wikipedia in culture#In fiction, where it is mentioned. PamD 06:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough independent, reputable reviews at this time. Thriley (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We need to be careful with the sourcing here. I posted above about how GeekDad is a usable source, so I won't bother summarizing that here. I more want to look at the other reviews in the coverage section, as they're all pretty concerning. The entire first paragraph looks like it's being sourced to book blurbs rather than any actual coverage or review. I couldn't find any evidence that they were part of anything longer - for example, there's nothing to show that Taylor Lorenz published anything about this book on The Washington Post's website. For those unaware, book blurbs are short, positive statements solicited by the publisher or author to promote the book. They don't tell the person exactly what to say, but they will likely tell them a general gist of what they want.
With Numlock News, the source is an interview. Now, I don't always agree with the idea that interviews can't give notability because well, if the interviewer or publication is notable or could be seen as a RS, then that's a sign that the interviewee did something they found interesting. I doubt anyone is going to agree with that, so I'm not arguing that an interview can give notability. I will say, however, that the comment about the book's quality was done in a very offhand manner and doesn't have any depth to it.
For Katy Trail News, to me this is a case of it being a weak source. This is a free weekly newspaper/magazine put out in Dallas. There's not a whole lot of info about it as far as readership and such goes, but it does have a set staff and the piece is written by the Editor in Chief. It's a local piece about a local person so that does weaken it quite a bit, but we need to ask ourselves if a review would otherwise be usable from this site. I would say yes, but it would not be something I'd want to stake notability on because it's a weaker source. The fact that it calls some of the book blurbs reviews is kind of concerning, further weakening the source.
I will take a look, but wanted to put my two cents in about the reviews, since those are usually what will make or break an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia in culture#In fiction. I really wanted to try and keep this article because honestly, it's interesting. However there's really not much out there. There are a lot of interviews out there about this book, but those aren't considered usable as far as notability giving purposes go. The only good review comes from GeekDad, as Katy Trail News has some definite issues with it that make it a weaker source at best. The other sources are all primary, as they are written by Harrison or otherwise directly related to him.
Honestly, my fingers are kind of itching to go in and remove the first paragraph from the reception section, as book blurbs should never be used in a reception section. These blurbs will never be negative, unless that's what the publisher wants. Blurbs are perfectly fine and suitable on a book cover, but they should never be used in an article. Honestly, I feel like including those are going to make it that much harder to establish any notability if someone were to find a few usable RS reviews and add them to the article. The author section should be removed and repurposed with a development section that covers the author as it applies to the book. I get that he writes about Wikipedia, but as it's currently written it feels very separate to the article topic.
The reason I want to improve the article is that I think the idea of redirecting it to Wikipedia in culture is an excellent idea. We can keep the article intact so that when others cover the book in enough detail to pass NBOOK, we have an article ready to go. However since the article appears to be the focus of a bit of discussion, I am hesitant to do any major edits, especially as it would remove some of the sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:14, 5 December 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Editors_(novel)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1261415228"