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. Secret ^account 07:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The After/Life (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)

Self published book that has not reached any national best seller list. No references to be found about the book, just bookseller sites. Fails WP:BKCRIT. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first Armenian writer written and published post-apocalyptic/sci-fi novel, has reached bestseller status in Armenia and has since expanded to reach out to other potential customers abroad. So when it is mentioned that no national best seller list includes The After/Life novel, which nation are we talking about? Does the inclusion of a novel info on wikipedia only justified when the title can be found on US (if this was the case stated) best seller lists? What about other countries? Deletion suggestion removed based on the above stated arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardan Partamyan (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 March 2013‎ (This user has no edits outside of the AfD's subject.)

Remove: To be honest I think the PROD removal was more of the work of a vandal than somebody whom was protesting it, nevertheless no sources and no reason to the removal of the PROD, I say we send it down the river. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found nothing out there that would show that this book is notable or that the claims of it being a bestseller in Armenia is true. Even if this was a bestseller, selling well does not give notability. We have dozens upon hundreds of books that have achieved the holiest of holies, the New York Times Bestseller status, yet do not pass notability guidelines. Some of them are in the top ten of their various lists or the main list, yet do not pass notability guidelines per WP:NBOOK. My point in detailing this is that being bestselling in any country does not give notability and that we're not prejudicing against this book because it's not as American as apple pie. Selling a lot of books just makes it more likely that it'll gain coverage. Part of the reason that bestseller status doesn't give notability is because the term is rather loosely thrown around. Someone sells 100 copies on Amazon and gets in the top 100 for their genre? Bestselling, never mind that they achieved it by giving the book out for free. There's also a big concern on whether or not the NYTB list is really all that prestigious, as several people have found evidence that the system is gamed by the bigger publishers, meaning that the "bestseller" status isn't really that accurate of a term. I couldn't find where the book had received any actual coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection. You stated yourself that the NYT bestseller list was not something to be considered a focal point. Equally so, the notability does not come from the number of copies sold but instead from the simple fact that THIS IS THE FIRST SCIENCE FICTION POST-APOCALYPTIC novel by an Armenian author. The reason you failed to find reference to the novel in the Armenian sites is the simple fact that you do not know Armenian language and thus your search results return no variants in the according category. So please remove the deletion claim from the article, allowing it to represent the first foray of an Armenian into the genre of post. apoc. sci-fi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardan Partamyan (talk • contribs)
• Suggested conclusion The review process should be more integral with the core guidelines of wiki articles for there is significant prejudice and subjectivity in the arguments brought above. I therefore contest the deletion claim and suggest taking this case into account when dealing with similar self-published but novel ideas such as The After/Life novel. It is also worth noting that self-publishing is the core anti-establishment movement that has made the books more available and less expensive. It is a global trend and I do not see the argument of publisher support as a viable notion. After all, wiki itself was born as a power to the people information sharing resource not some corporate outlet or an encyclopedia publisher's ad extension. All the people who posted should keep that in mind. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.75.174 (talk)

• Delete as WP:SPAM. Given the username of the editor who created the article, and the name of teh author, I guess that the fact that the description of teh book is a copy of the product description shouldn't be surprising. Wikipedia is not a place to promoet your e-book (or anythign else for that matter). More importantly, I don't see that any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books) is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection you not seeing any notability criteria met is not a criteria or a proof itself but a subjective view that cannot serve as a viable basis for deletion. The notability of the book has been established in the above state argument on the novel being the first of its kind and no further argumentation is necessary in this regard. Should the article be deleted, it will bring forth a lot of questions about the wikipedia bias towards works that were not written by authors from US, UK and several other major players in the contemporary literary field. That bias being established, it will hurt the interests of wikipedia in all the rest of the markets that aspire and make use of and make contributions to wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.68.97 (talk)
  • Reply - The term "notability" as used in Wikipedia has a specific meaning. It refers to our inclusion guidelines: general guideline, guidelines for books are the specific ones that are applicable in this case. Please show how these guidelines are met. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation I do not believe that the article deletion and moderation should be carried out by people who do not know how to spell the word THE as well as PROMOTE...I mean writing teh instead of the and promoet instead of promote just shows the proficiency of the editor or rather complete and utter lack thereof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.68.97 (talk)
• Reply The term notability has one general meaning in any case and as wikipedia uses the English language the meaning of the word cannot be different here than anywhere else. You cannot have the word horse meaning an elephant in wikipedia as it is an online encyclopedia resource not making new content but basing the data on the existing sources. Therefore, the stated notability factor of "first of its kind" (see above) should suffice the notability criteria and close this discussion so that we can all get on with our job. I want to thank everyone for their contribution to the discussion and look forward to future debates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.77.194 (talk)
  • Reply - You are free to disregard the link to the guidelines, but that will not result in this article being kept. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Nor should it result in this article being deleted. To prove the deletion case, you should prove that the notability standards are not met and the first-of-a-kind is not a notability category. Please refer to the guidelines and the existing controversies before further comments. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.74.70 (talk)
• Comment I'm replying to some of the IP statements here:

1. As far as claims of "first" go, you have to prove that this is the first Armenian sci-fi apocalypse book ever written and that this is notable. Odds are high that this book was not the first such book in its category and even if it was, which is unlikely, being the first at something does not automatically mean notability. Things of this nature are proven by reliable sources, which did not exist. And before anyone asks, yes you have to have proof. You cannot have an article pass AfD without showing that the claims are backed up in some form of reliable coverage. People can claim whatever they like, but that doesn't mean that it's true or that the claims are notable. I could claim that the book cures cancer and Michael Bay wants to make ten movies based off of it, but without proof those claims are ultimately meaningless as far as establishing notability goes. No amount of protest will change this, no matter how many times someone comes on to complain. I'll say flat out that requiring reliable sources to back up claims has been a policy here for years and it's unlikely to change at all ever, let alone during the period of this AfD.
2. While the lack of English language reliable sources does not mean that the book might not have Armenian sources, it is usually a strong indication at a general lack of notability. If the book was as bestselling and groundbreaking as the IPs are claiming, there would be some mention of this somewhere in a RS. A search for this when this first came up for PROD, when it was brought to AfD on the 6th, and again today on the 11th brought up very little coverage in any source other than merchant links, false positives, and junk hits that come up with whatever you happened to type into the search engine. (In other words, typing in "owqeroy" will bring up hits for sites that only mirror your text.) It's very unlikely that a novel that makes as many claims as this does would go almost completely unnoticed by the English language world as a whole. At some point books of this nature get some level of coverage. The only person that seems to really be discussing this book is the author himself for the most part. There is very little other coverage.
3. Being a self-published book is not an indication of notability and Wikipedia is under no obligation to host articles about books that do not meet our specific notability guidelines for books at WP:NBOOK. Notability is not inherited by the book being self-published, in other words. The current trend of self-publishing is notable, but that doesn't mean that notability is extended to every book ever published through this venue. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I understand that it's hard for indie and self-published books to gain coverage, but that doesn't exclude them from the same rules that every book must have. The self-published status makes it unlikely that such books would gain this coverage, but it's not impossible. The bottom line is that we cannot and will not keep articles because it's "interesting" or because it'd be "useful".(WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, or anything at WP:ATA)
4. Saying that a person's vote is invalid because of a typo is not a good argument to make. If anything, making comments like that are more likely to make incoming editors less likely to be sympathetic for you and for the article. Typos happen and many times we have people who are very smart and have good things to say, but make typos or errors in spelling/grammar for whatever reason. Sometimes it's because English is not their first language. Other times it's because of something like dyslexia, aphasia, or because they have physical conditions that make it harder to type on a keyboard in general. Unless the person is saying something that is completely not based off of policies, it's considered rather poor form to criticize an entire argument based on a few misspellings, whether it's because of a physical or mental handicap, a language barrier, or just a random error. It's a very, very cheap shot and never one that works in AfD unless the person isn't making sense, which Whpq was. I could understand her arguments clearly despite the misspellings.
5. On a side note, I have to ask you (the IP user) are User:‎Vardan Partamyan. There's nothing wrong with logging in under an IP address, but if you are the same person then you need to make this very clear. Coming in under different names or IPs and making arguments for keep or delete give off the appearance of vote stacking or sock puppeting. AfDs aren't decided on votes, but rather the strength of the arguments and how they apply to established notability policies. This is especially important if we believe that you are personally involved with the book, such as being the author or someone that knows him. Nothing ruins a person's credibility more than suspecting that they're logging in under different formats to try to game the system. In almost all of these cases the person or people are caught. Please don't take that as an insult, just a warning that if you are the same person then you might want to post under your log-in name to avoid confusion or suspicion.

I hope this clears some of the things up. All notability inevitably boils down to "prove it via reliable sources". We cannot keep an article based upon someone claiming something on an AfD when they are unable to prove it in some form or fashion. If you want to bring in Armenian language sources that could help prove the claims, please do so. But until those sources are given, we have no choice but to assume that this book is not notable and no amount of insults or claims will change that.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tokyogirl79 and Whpq -- and isn't the product description on Amazon under copyright? --Stfg (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply The comments made by Tokiogirl79 user are invalid for the following reasons:

1. The user shows clear bias towards the article. The creator of the article pursues no commercial goals by publishing information on the novel on wikipedia. The aim of the article is to inform the people who are interested in the genre that there is a novel on the topic by an Armenian writer that is first of its kind. It is not the author's responsibility to prove the first of a kind notion, it is up to the objecting side to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is not the first novel of its kind written by an Armenian author. If one example of a similar novel is brought to the author's attention, he will voluntarily and immediately delete the entry from the wikipedia archive. Moreover, the bias is restated by the fact that the user Tokiogirl79 uses the words "false positive" reviews about the book - thereby putting into doubt and insulting the individuals who have independently reviewed the novel and given their positive feedback on it. There are more statements of that kind, including the justification of a spelling challenged person who reviews literary work and judges its notability but that is beside the point as nothing more could be expected from a biased editor. I will thereby no longer reply to Tokiogirl79 biased comments and will pursue the case indefinitely as long as the case of non-notability of the work is proven beyond doubt, which not only has not been done but all the comments made so far have been superficial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.167.47 (talk)

Anyone else think we've got a Meatpuppet / SockPuppet with 87.241.167.47? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More likely one person using a dynamic IP. All five IP addresses used so far on this page geolocate to Yerevan, Armenia. Four of them are dynamic IPs belonging to the ISP K-Telecom CJSC. The fifth is a static IP belonging to ArmenTel CJSC. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2013 (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.