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 keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham 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)

Non-notable novel by minor writer, no meaningful sourcing Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ny Times reivew here [1] and a Kirkus Reviews item [2]. Probably just enough, two critical reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know that some interpret WP:BOOKCRIT as meaning that any book that gets a couple of reviews is notable. First, whether or not a book gets reviewed often is a function of the degree to which the publisher does its promotion - publishers *push*, reviewers do not *pull*. Second, there shouldn't be much weight given to Kirkus reviews because Kirkus reviews everything they receive, and their reviews are intended to indicate whether libraries should add the book to their collections. Third, I know that the policy does not state that the reviews have to be positive, but there is some common sense that says that it makes a difference. Negative reviews of factual works may be useful but fiction is art, not science, so there really isn't the kind of back and forth of facts or conclusions that you have in the non-fiction world. In this case, the reviews clearly state that this is a mediocre novel, with cliche'd writing. To further deny notability, this was presumably being made into a movie but almost ten years have passed and it has not happened. I don't know how to find out if the movie concept is totally abandoned, but this is another strike against this book. (Note that movie studios snap up lots of books, mainly to keep anyone else from using them. It's actually making them into movies that should be noted.) Lamona (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree with Lamona's arguments. Wikipedia does not only contain articles on books with good reviews and a movie. I can see why Lamona wouldn't want to add this book to their bookshelf, but critical reviews are the definition of notability for a book, and anything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page. Lamona (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've also found reviews of the book in the Buffalo News and the South Bend Tribune. This should be plenty to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I had originally created this article, and had to look up when. It was probably one of my first creations here, since I created it in January, 2004, or more than twenty years ago. Since then, dozens of other editors have contributed hundreds of additions and corrections to the article. If the book wasn't interesting to others I doubt it would have been regularly updated and revised. I concur with ToughPigs, I think Lamona's desire to "cancel" this article is more of a case that he does not like it than that it is not notworthy or qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the allegation that some critics consider it a "mediocre novel with cliche'd writing," first, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it, but it could be they do not like the subject matter: the story begins with the first-person narrative of a British airline pilot on a lay over in a bankrupt, third world country that is so impoverished that its neighbor country to the north imposed the death penalty for smuggling gasoline to it, and starving mobs try to rush airplanes leaving the country to someplace better, with military troops having to shoot them. The "third world country" in question? The United States after it exhausted its oil reserves. As the book progresses, things go from bad to worse. While later real-world events proved the scenario unlikely, I believe the book is a reasonable look into a dystopian New York City and how if the world is balanced on a knife's edge of sanity, any event can trigger a catastrophe. Not every book of this sort of dystopian future is necessarily going to get positive reviews, I think it is a relevant example of the zeitgeist of the period and how some people thought the 1970s oil crises might end. For these reasons, I urge retention of the review.
  
  "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
  
  Thank you.
  Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least four reliable sources review the book. That's above NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:56, 7 July 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.