- 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Flotilla (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this book for deletion because it doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. The article lacks reliable sources and a search does not bring up any in-depth coverage in sources that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. This is ultimately a non-notable self-published book. It also doesn't help that the article has serious problems with NPOV and at times seems more like a promotional article/spam for the book than an encyclopedic entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I'm the original author of the Flotilla article. I did not write this article to be a 'promotional article/spam' but rather to discuss a novel that discussed many different scientific issues that are getting a greater amount of attention in current events (seasteading and mariculture). As there are no other mainstream novels that speak to these issues cited on Wikipedia, I would suggest that the Flotilla article has a value even if it is independently published.
I cannot help that I used the same format as every other movie/novel that is cited on Wikipedia - perhaps you feel that it is being promotional when I included information to ensure that it read as completely as the entry for Star Wars or Inception.
As to whether this article should be removed because Telemachus Press is considered a 'vanity' press, I cannot speak to this. I do know that they also publish Lawrence Block so perhaps that might be worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.122.154 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to include other external references to improve the effectiveness of the article. I would ask for your assistance in this matter because this is my first Wiki article. Please do not remove it until then.--98.210.122.154 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, even if you didn't mean for it to come across as spam, that's what it looks like- especially considering how little coverage this book is getting in even the book blogging world. In most instances entries like this are usually added by the author, someone they know, or someone they paid to edit for them. I'm not saying that you are someone that falls along these lines (but if you are, you should make that aware since it's a WP:COI), but just letting you know how these things are usually perceived. As far as the format goes, it does follow the basic layout but is still written in a non-neutral fashion. As far as value goes, you'd have to show that it meets notability guidelines by showing that it has received coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, which just do not seem to exist for this book. The book's biggest claim to fame is that the author managed to be lucky enough to get on the air via a call-in on Jimmy Kimmel and that by itself is not enough to warrant an entry. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that this would be considered a reliable source since it's just a phone call into a studio and not really an actual interview. Now as far as self-publishing goes, being self-published doesn't mean that a book can't be notable- Wool is a good example of how big a self-published book can get. It just means that it's far more likely to slip under the radar and receive zero coverage in reliable sources or at all. The odds are stacked against the self-published and indie authors as far as Wikipedia's notability guidelines go. It's unfortunate sometimes, as there are some pretty neat books that I'd otherwise love to add to Wikipedia, but that's the way the rules are. We can't keep an article because it's your first one, or because the book mentions topics that might be notable. It doesn't pass notability guidelines and besides, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by any link the book, author, or publisher might have to people, topics, or things that are notable. If you really want to keep your work and create a wiki for the entry, I suggest looking into some of the free wiki sites out there such as Wikia and copying the info onto there. This book doesn't pass WP:NBOOK, plain and simple.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also really like you to read over WP:VALINFO as far as the argument of value goes, as well as the page as a whole as far as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me be the first to assure you that I was not paid for writing this, nor was I attempting to write a promotional article. Again, I used other movie/book articles as a guide for tone and reference. After reviewing your comments again, and having read *dozens* of articles about unremarkable books and movies that Wikipedia has no issue at publishing, I felt that Wikipedia would enjoy learning about this novel, which discusses issues of sustainability and emerging technology in a way I've never seen any other book, fiction or non-fiction, discuss.
But ... that's your privilege. I was, until now, a cheerful supporter of this organization. Go ahead and kill my attempt to contribute.
[[User:|User:]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.106.40 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really an argument to keep an article and we don't keep articles because someone is threatening to leave. We don't keep articles because its deletion would make you feel bad. Editors on Wikipedia are expected to follow the rules for notability and neutrality the same as any other editor. No one gets special treatment just because "it's interesting" or because someone threatens to flounce off if their page gets deleted. If you see an article that does not pass notability guidelines, feel free to nominate them for AfD. There are a lot of articles here on Wikipedia that exist only because someone has yet to notice it and nominate it for AfD, so saying that less worthy topics have articles is not a valid reason to say that this article should be kept. An article must have coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. This article does not and no amount of "but it's cool/interesting/different" will keep it. That's not how Wikipedia works. And as far as neutrality goes, you may have followed the basic outline for other pages, but the entry still reads non-neutral. It might be that because you are a new user you aren't as used to writing in a neutral fashion. Many have this issue when they first start editing Wikipedia and you might try re-writing the article as practice rather than just complaining. Complaining isn't going to change the rules to where an article can be kept when it doesn't have reliable sources to show notability. Out of all of the rules on Wikipedia, that's one that is highly unlikely to change.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 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.