Talk:Secrets of the Last Nazi

Cleanup
This needs a LOT of cleanup since it relies a lot on unreliable sources like Twitter reviews! and blog sources. It looks like it should be notable, but this really needs a lot of TLC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, WOW. There were a lot of unusable sources. If the rest are like this, then I actually do have to doubt its notability. Here's a run through of the first sources I've removed and why. (I left the Sun review since that would likely be usable (assuming it's a review) and the Bookseller is also usable.) Because there are just so many, I'm going to try to lump them by type (ie, the site) rather than individually. Some of them I'd have left, like the Guardian mention, except that there was nothing about where it was featured or when, just a claim that it was in the paper. If I can find this later, I'll re-add it. You have to be careful with the Guardian because while they do professional reviews, they also have random reader reviews as well.


 * 1) Amazon. This is a merchant source and is not usable for notability purposes or even really notability in general. Merchant sources exist to sell you something, so using this on a page can be seen as an endorsement of the site or the product. Also, reviews and sales ranking on Amazon mean absolutely nothing to Wikipedia because anyone can write a review for a merchant site and sales ranks do not qualify towards notability, per WP:NBOOK. At best sales can make it more likely that there will be coverage in WP:RS, but it isn't a guarantee and does not give notability in and of itself unless the book is included in a notable bestseller listing like the New York Times. Amazon and other merchant sources are explicitly stated to be unusable.
 * 2) Blogs. This is a blog post. Blogs are considered to be WP:SPS, meaning that they go through little to no editorial oversight. The only exceptions (which are very rare) is if the blog does have a verifiable editorial process and/or they are routinely cited in reliable sources like newspapers and academic journals/books as a reliable source. Even if the blog is saying something that might be considered a notable, this still needs to be said in a reliable source. Also, take "award winning" with a grain of salt with these blogs. A lot of the reviews are handed out by other blogs, which means that most of the awards given to blogs are unusable as far as showing notability for the source goes. The ones that would give notability are typically the kind where the award is considered notable along the lines of a Hugo Award or the like. Writing Belle, Authors Interviews, A Book Lover's Blog, This Chick Reads, Accio Adventure, Stacy Alesi, AJOOBACATS BLOG,
 * 3) Literary Agent. This is, at best, a primary source. The reason for this is because she represents the author and as such, will be likely to say nice things about them. Her job is to sell this author to publishers and readers. As such, anything that she reports on her site should be taken with a grain of salt. Primary sources can be used to back up basic info, but only minor details and even then it's preferred that it be reported on in reliable sources.
 * 4) Twitter. Twitter is almost always non-usable as a RS. This was used to back up sales data (which doesn't matter on Wikipedia) and for random Twitter reviews. Twitter posts are not usable as a reliable source to show notability. It's a WP:TRIVIAL or WP:PRIMARY source at best, since the coverage is so brief.
 * 5) Author's Website. This is a primary source as well and would not be usable. It can back up basic details, but it is not a notability giving source. In one instance it's used to back up reviews, but the thing is that if these reviews were usable they'd be posted on a reliable source somewhere like a newspaper. There are some blurbs from various people, but book blurbs cannot show notability. The only way that these would be usable is if the person had written a review in a place that'd be considered reliable, like Sky News itself. This is one of the catches: a person might be considered otherwise reliable but if they self-publish it or only give you a quick blurb with the intent to help you sell a book, these aren't usable.
 * 6) Netgalley. Netgalley is not a reliable source. They are a service where the publisher or author pays them to send their books out to reviewers, so they're a primary source. Also, the claims of having a notable person review the book brings in the same concerns about book blurbs since these look to be your standard 1-2 sentence book blurbs that people give out with the intent to get their name on the cover. Blurbs have long since been considered unusable since it's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" sort of situation and they're not indepth enough to give notability.
 * 7) Talk Radio Europe. This one is iffy. It seems to be better than the typical podcast, but it also has one big issue: this went directly to the show's page and didn't show where it'd been covered. This is the type of source where I'd have to run it past WP:RS/N, but it still isn't an exceedingly strong source overall. I'd have left it except that it didn't show where the book had been covered.
 * 8) Goodreads. Goodreads is not usable as a RS because it is user edited. It also cannot show notability because anyone can leave a review there - something that it's received both praise and criticism for.


 * I'm going to go through the rest and post more as I remove more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's more: I did leave some primary sources like the book pages, but I need to stress that these cannot show notability and are only primary at best.


 * 1) More blogs: (some were mentioned in the above source overview) Men Reading Books
 * 2) A hotel website: This is not something that could show notability. At best this would be a primary source.
 * 3) The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult. This is a self-published book, published through Lulu. This cannot show notability at all, in any context. It can't even be used to back up basic details because it is self-published.


 * Now I did remove the themes section because it took quotes from the book. The problem with this is that this is original research, which cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Unless the author explicitly states this in his website, foreword, or it's mentioned in a very reliable source (ie, a trusted book critic that would pass at RS/N) it should not be posted here at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I re-wrote the character section since it was very WP:OR and fannish in tone. It used some book quotes, but since I re-wrote this section I just went ahead and removed them. There were also some blogs listed Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 
 * Inspiration: This listed more blogs, which are unusable. It also relied heavily on original research culled through the author's past works, which is not permitted on here. I'm removing the spots that are attributed to the blogs and leaving behind only what can be affirmed through the good sourcing on the page. The only one that is somewhat usable appears to be the Pembrokian, which is an alumni paper. This makes it a primary source at best, so it cannot show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Research and Writing: This also had more blogs, but it also tried to use Wikipedia as a source. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, anyone can claim anything. This doesn't mean that the person who uploaded the photo was lying, but even so - Wikipedia is not usable as a source in any context. I also need to note that the article tried to assert that Writing Belle is a magazine. It is not. The section also contained a LOT of original research. Also, while The Atlantic is a RS, this did not cover the book or King, so we cannot use it to show notability for the book. Since the section was almost entirely OR to begin with, I just removed the section entirely. It also quoted [The Bookseller, which is already used as a source elsewhere in the article, so I removed a double cite. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]] (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Publication and Reception: Most of the sourcing that I'm removing were blogs already mentioned above. A lot of these were double cites. This section contained info already in the lead (about the publishing history) and a lot of it was the same blogs, Twitter feeds, and other primary/unusable sources. The reviews were almost entirely blogs. I also need to note that one was by a BBC reporter, but it was on his own blog so it's a SPS. I also noted that the Guardian review is apparently only accessible via the author's site, which gives off the strong, STRONG impression that this was a routine book blurb. As stated above, these tend to be done as a quid pro quo type of deal. One person gives another a blurb, knowing that the author will return the favor later for their work and that they'll gain more visibility by having their name posted on the book and/or on the author's website. It's pretty standard. The new blogs mentioned here is Sean's Book Reviews and the section also tries to cite Goodreader reviews as a RS. Since none were usable, I've removed the section. I really don't know how this got through AfC, since very few of the sources are usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Epilogue and Sequel. I've removed two sources, one of which is already used and one is on the book show site that doesn't back up the claims. Either way, only one source is needed for this. Given the weak sourcing left behind, odds are high that I'll nominate this for AfD. This really, REALLY shouldn't have been accepted through AfC at all. It was far from ready and the sourcing was almost entirely unreliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You've just deleted some very valuable sources. These include a radio show interview, some award-winning literary review sites, and references from a book (with an ISBN number). The other references hundred-and-one references that you have deleted may not meet WK standards to establish notability on the site, but they are nonetheless valid as sources of information which improve the article and provide a basis for it. Cantelo (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "award winning" site was a blog and I didn't really see where it'd won any awards from a place that would be considered notable. It won an award from another blog, which is a self-published source. Not all awards are considered to be the type that would give notability or make something reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The radio show source was also unusable because it went to the basic page for the radio show, which did not back up any of the claims in the citation. It proved the show as a whole existed, but not the specific episode. The site is also sort of dodgy in information about the show as a whole, so we have no way of knowing exactly how good they are about coverage and so on - not every radio show is usable. As for the ISBN goes, that does not mean that the book is a reliable source. Lulu is a self-publishing outlet that does not give any of their books editorial oversight. This means that they publish everything and they are notorious on here for being an unreliable source. The long and short is that you ultimately have a lot of sources, some of which are cited multiple times, that are largely unreliable and cannot give notability. They can't even really be relied upon to back up basic details since blogs and other self-published sources are self-published, meaning that people can write whatever they want without anyone QCing the content. Also, some of the claims in the article aren't ones that hold any weight on Wikipedia. For example, blog reviews and Twitter reviews are not usable on Wikipedia. They're self-published. I've gone through all of this above. I also have to ask: were you paid to create this site or do you have any sort of a conflict of interest with the book or author, meaning were you asked to create this? THis gives off the strong impression that you have a WP:COI, given how promotional the material seems to be in areas. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please! My only connection with the book is that I read it (and was deeply impressed by it). I have not been paid to write this. Regarding deletion, you seem to be saying that if the Sun newspaper quote is verified, and/or the radio interview is verified, then it meets the notability criteria. Is that right? Why do you not accept the twitter messages from the Sun and the book show as proof that these things happened? Cantelo (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See my individual run through of the sources to see why these sources are not usable. In multiple, multiple instances in the article you have blatantly misrepresented various sources where you've cited WP:PRIMARY material (press release material) and attributed them to secondary people. For example, a press kit "about the author" section is attributed to a blogger. In other sources you've been deliberately vague about sales, citing Amazon specifically and giving off the impression that the "best selling" claims come from traditional book sales through brick and mortar outlets and other merchant sites. You also cite the author at one point and claim that the book was the best selling in the thriller category on Amazon when in truth it was in a smaller, more narrow category. The way that all of this was done gives off the strong impression that you knew what you were doing. Stuff like this is very rarely done by someone who wasn't paid or otherwise reimbursed to write the article, which is why I still suspect that you have a conflict of interest here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)