Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARIA (novel)


 * 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 The result was delete. Lady of  Shalott  16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ARIA (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to worldcat, the various parts of this trilogy are in a total of 5 libraries. Cannot possibly be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as apparently failing to meet the WP:NBOOK threshold for notability. Novel claim about "infectious amnesia" is not correct. - Dravecky (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I donate to Wikipedia and I swear, I will never do so again if this page is taken down, especially because of some moron who is looking for faults in other people on Christmas Fucking Day.

C'mon?

Geoff Nelder is a great writer (and yes, a great friend) and his words and works are of important historical recording, unlike these Nazi's who want to remove him from the greatest history book of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.109.120 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2013

30 December 2013 - This is Jolie du Pre. (I can see that some of Nelder's readers are angry about Wikipedia threatening to remove his ARIA page. However, please know that I did not write the comments that proceed mine.)  Nelder has asked me to correct his page. I will attempt to do that on Jan. 1, 2014. SO PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE ARIA PAGE. GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON IT. As I said, I'll be doing that on Jan. 1, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliedupre2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1 January 2014 - This is Jolie du Pre. I am continuing my update of the ARIA page January 2, 2014. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE.Joliedupre2 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to issue a warning about language- cursing out someone is not a good way to get your point across. Because you are so heated, I'd like to point you and the others towards WP:COI, our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Editing with a COI means that you might see more notability than there actually is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far my biggest issue is that while I am finding sources, there is a problem of the author's association with some of the sites. By this I mean that Nelder is a member of the British Fantasy Society, which makes the award and review from them somewhat WP:PRIMARY since it's ultimately in their best interest to write good reviews for their members and give them awards. Does this automatically mean that they give nothing but glowing reviews and various awards? Of course not- but that's a big issue here and most groups have to be extremely transparent and established to really go above the big issues for primary sources. I think that so far the best option would be to redirect to the author's page, which needs a lot of cleaning itself. To any of the fans, please don't take this badly. This doesn't mean that the author's page will get deleted or that he's any less of a good author in your eyes, just that notability standards are very strict on here. Please do not take this out on the page or any of the editors here, as this does not help the author out any as far as his reputation goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Geoff Nelder/Delete. Once you take away the sources from the BFS, you really don't have much. I don't see the National Trust Going Green as a site that we'd really consider to be a RS, but that's sort of a moot point since the source is using a comment by Nelder in an article that has nothing to do with the actual book or author at all. That doesn't show notability. That's the type of thing that would be considered WP:TRIVIAL at best. Now I'm not really all that certain about the notability for the author either. I was hoping that I'd find more sourcing for him, but the sourcing for Nelder as a whole is relatively spotty. I'll probably nominate him for deletion, as he doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Again, I really hope that the fanbase doesn't take this too hard. It's very, very, VERY hard to pass notability guidelines on here. I've seen authors that hit the New York Times' bestseller list not pass notability guidelines- and these are people whose books are sold through major publishers. I remember having to fight a little bit to assert notability for WOOL when someone tried to PROD it for deletion, so it's not as easy as saying "I'm a fan, this is notable". I have to repeat- it's insanely hard. But the problem here is that while I'd love to bend the notability guidelines for someone, we can't do that. The rules are strict because in the past we did just that and people pretty much abused this leniency and the looser guidelines to where we have stricter guidelines and we don't give any leniency. We have to hold everyone to the same standards, which unfortunately means that a lot of smaller authors get deleted. It's just that we can't keep articles based on sentiment- we have to have coverage in RS and it's just not there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for sources and hopefully I'll find some more for Nelder, but the search isn't bringing up much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave the author's page for now- there's just enough to where I could possibly argue for a keep, but it's insanely light and much of the non-ARIA stuff is local. I honestly don't know that it would make it through AfD if it's ultimately put up for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On another side note to any of the fans that are reading, a good thing to do for right now would be to hit up the main reviewing websites and magazines/papers such as Tor.com, Locus, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Strange Horizons, and whatnot in order to petition for them to read and review Nelder's work and/or write articles about him. Some of them do allow for reader submissions, but be aware that we can only accept such sources when they come from places that have a good editorial board that we're familiar with and can verify. That's why many places such as blog sources aren't usable as reliable sources- most have no editorial board or one that can't be verified for accuracy and so on. Petitioning them isn't a guarantee that they'll review the work, but it's more productive than cursing out a Wikipedia editor/administrator, which accomplishes nothing and makes other editors immediately go on the defensive. Getting overly defensive will not help out anyone, least of all the author. As someone who has seen stuff like this happen on various sites, stuff like this can get around and before you know it, the behavior of a few fans is now linked to the author, who gains a negative reputation because of it. Seriously, it can ruin reputations, so please- no more cursing or threats. I know that not all of you have done this and I thank you for that, but this is a blanket warning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Everything else aside, it appears to not meet any of the five WP:NBOOK criteria. Just being a book and winning a minor award doesn't cut it. Gm545 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

2, January, 2013 - ARIA is more than just a book that won a "minor award." Nelder introduced Alien Retrograde Infectious Amnesia, a fictional condition, never used previously, that authors of the future may want to refer to and even incorporate into their own works. Does the author need to be a Michael Crichton, or an Eoin Colfer to be included in Wikipedia? Joliedupre2 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, but as a rule of thumb, the exclusionary criteria in WP:NBOOK gives a guide to suggest that if the book isn't included in its country's national library, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I checked the British Library's website and couldn't find this book. As for the claim about the novelty of alien infectious retrograde amnesia, it appears that infectious retrograde amnesia already existed as a non-fictional condition (see Retrograde_amnesia). Simply adding the concept that it's alien I think wouldn't be enough. Also, given that it's not notable enough to have been included in the British Library, you'd need some exceptional grounds for inclusion. I'd say the concept would be an un-exceptional reason. If it is true that in the future that your assertion is borne out, that future writers use this as a work of classic literature, THEN it would be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:ATA.Gm545 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to this, the problem with coming up with new ideas is that the idea doesn't automatically make someone notable. You have to prove that someone has used the idea, that they credit the author in a reliable source, and most importantly- that the people that are using the new idea are notable. A dozen self-published obscure authors would not really count towards notability, not if the new idea isn't actually credited to Nelder in a reliable source. An example of what would count would be say, Charlaine Harris or Jeaniene Frost saying Laurell K Hamilton was an inspiration. The obvious problem is that not all authors are going to outright say this even if they're notable. The authors could turn around and say that they came up with this specific idea- and you can't do anything to disprove it. Case in point: Repo Men looks to have "borrowed" liberally from Repo! The Genetic Opera, but everyone involved in Repo Men denies this- despite the huge, huge similarities. Repo! fans have called BS for years, but that doesn't mean squat because as long as the other people say it's their idea, you can't prove anything. Even if they don't outright say it was their original idea, you still can't prove that they were inspired by Nelder. The problem with claiming someone is an influence is that it's so incredibly hard to prove because most ideas are fluid and most ideas are just spinoffs of bigger ideas, such as what Gm545 explained. Not to mention that it's almost impossible to claim being an inspiration or a notable originator of an idea without having a ton of reliable sources in general. The unsaid thing about any given qualification for WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR is that in order to go for one of the smaller things, it's almost a given that they'd have enough WP:RS to where qualifying under a specific guideline would be a moot point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

3 January 2014 - So far Wikipedia is king, but a king doesn't stay a king forever, and eventually something will come along to compete with it or replace it. Hopefully, that something will not penalize authors who are not nationally and internationally famous. Thank you for your comments on this matter, and I wish Geoff Nelder much success as he continues with his writing career and his books.Joliedupre2 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The WP:NBOOK threshold is fairly simple and if even a few reliable third-party sources had done an in-depth review of this novel there likely wouldn't have been an issue. And not everything an author creates is necessarily notable enough to have its own encyclopedia article, especially an author whose own notability is somewhat tenuous. - Dravecky (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree. The book simply doesn't meet any of the criteria of notability WP:BKCRIT. I'd be happy for the book to stay if it could be proven otherwise.--Graeme 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Arnott (talk • contribs)

3 January 2014 - Mr. Nelder looked at this Talk page. We are having a final discussion. I hope to return to this Talk page on either 1/4/2014 or 1/5/2014 with the results of our discussion. Please give us the courtesy of leaving ARIA alone until I return to this page. Thank you. Joliedupre2 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there's really not much that Nelder can do to keep this other than try to get various media outlets to review the book. If he could manage to get say, some quick interviews on sites such as Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Variety, Tor.com, and the like, then that would help greatly- as would reviews from all of those websites. Other than that, there's not much that can be done. The AfD has been extended until about 1/8, but I'll be honest when I say that the chances of this staying are fairly slim. At that point it's really just better for you to just let the article go. Cut your losses and quietly wait for the series to gain more reviews. I'll be very honest in saying that getting upset at Wikipedia for its strict guidelines isn't going to solve anything. Even getting upset at the people who came onto Wikipedia and caused the need for such strict guidelines won't really solve anything. They were jerks but it happened and what came of it is what came of it. It's a shame that many authors and series won't pass notability guidelines, but it happens and the only thing to do is to very calmly accept that a series falls short and move on. Try to gain more coverage so that in the future you can possibly re-create the article, but for right now it's just better to let it go. I will say that since you are obviously editing with a serious conflict of interest, that it would be better if you got someone else to look at the sources to verify how useful they might be. You can obviously still edit with a COI, but the problem is that in many cases people not only see more notability than there might be but they also take things personally when there wasn't any personal slight meant. It's not the end of the world that the ARIA article gets deleted and it doesn't mean that Nelder is never going to get any sort of media attention ever again. However getting upset at an AfD, saying that Wikipedia will eventually fall because it won't make a special exception for an author you personally like (which is essentially what you're saying), and so on... that doesn't help you any. The bottom line is that this series fails our guidelines for books. As someone who has been editing and creating book articles for a few years now, I can honestly say that this book series doesn't pass. It'd be nice if we could otherwise keep it, but we can't- and we can't make exceptions for anyone. Either everyone follows the same rules or nobody follows the rules. It'd be incredibly unfair if we were to keep this article on weak sourcing, then turn around and tell another author that their page has to be deleted. That's not how this works and honestly, is that how Nelder wants to keep this article? By asking for special treatment rather than waiting and working for the sources over time? This book just doesn't pass notability guidelines right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

4 January 2013 - Tokyo Girl wrote: "So far my biggest issue is that while I am finding sources, there is a problem of the author's association with some of the sites. By this I mean that Nelder is a member of the British Fantasy Society, which makes the award and review from them somewhat WP:PRIMARY since it's ultimately in their best interest to write good reviews for their members and give them awards."

From Geoff Nelder: "The BFS merely reported that ARIA had won the Preditors & Editors Readers Poll for best science fiction novel of 2012. P&E has no connection with the BFS and you'd think this award, in itself, would count towards notability."

From Jolie du Pre: I made it clear, when I first edited the ARIA page, that the P&E award was on its own. Some mysterious person came along and associated the P&E award with BFS, along with removing entire sections of the ARIA page, specifically the Settings section and the History section. Today, I corrected the error the person made regarding the P&E award.Joliedupre2 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

4 January 2013 - From Geoff Nelder: "Tokyo Girl mentions I should get a review from Library Thing, but Compulsive Reader is bigger and they deleted the review link from that! http://www.compulsivereader.com/2012/11/17/a-review-of-aria-left-luggage-by-geoff-nelder/ "Joliedupre2 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, I said you should get a review from the Library Journal, which is a company that was founded in the late 1800s by that runs reviews but also covers various things in the book world. It's a trade paper, but a very well respected one, as the same company that currently owns it also owns the Horn Book Guide, which is considered to be one of the best trade review outlets out there. (LJ was also founded by the guy that created the Dewey Decimal system, but I digress.) Library Thing is a dramatically different type of website. They are not the same thing and the difference between the two is very, very dramatic in scale when it comes to reviews. The reviews from the Library Journal are run through an editorial board and are written by staff specifically hired by the company, whereas LibraryThing is a social website where anyone can sign up and anyone can submit a review without any editorial oversight. There is a huge, huge difference there. In any case, Compulsive Reader is a book review blog and I believe that I've already elaborated on why most blogs are unusable. Compulsive Reader isn't one of the few blogs that would be considered usable as a reliable source. Popularity or size of a blog does not guarantee that it is considered a reliable source. I mean, Dear Author is a much larger site than Compulsive Reader and is far more popular, but it isn't considered to be a reliable source either because of the problems prevalent with blog and blog-type sources. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

4 January 2013 - To Tokyo Girl, and to everyone else, I've relayed your information to Nelder. Tokyo Girl, you're absolutely right. It is NOT the end of the world that the ARIA article gets deleted, and it doesn't mean that Nelder is never going to get any sort of media attention ever again. Nelder will eventually become well known for the work he's done and will continue to do. In closing, I refer to Wikipedia on a daily basis. I've seen information listed at Wikipedia that was questionable, but I never bothered reporting it. That changes TODAY. Specifically, if I ever run across another book that does not seem "notable" to me, I'll report it. Since Nelder's book is going to be removed for not being "notable," every other book that exists in Wikipedia that is not "notable" should be removed, as well. Thanks for your time and for your comments, and enjoy your 2014.Joliedupre2 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

4 January 2013 - With respect, ARIA was thought worthy to add to the wikipedia database not because it is a book, or that it won an award but because it is the only work of fiction or film that I know of that uses the concept of infectious amnesia. It's this use that spurred notable authors such as Mike Resnick, Robert J Sawyer, Charles Stross, Brad Lineweaver and Jon Courtenay Weaver to refer to the work as original, 'fascinating project', and to endorse it. The award ought to have more clout than is supposed here because ARIA: Left Luggage won the Preditors & Editors Award for best science fiction novel of 2012 with many hundreds of readers voting - not just a handful of people that judge many other awards (not that I'm dissing those in any way). The P&E is run indepently of any organisation or publisher by lawyer David Kuzminski and not as mentioned in comments above by the British Fantasy Society who reported the win. I know that Herpes Simplex can be infectious (but not by everyone with no immunity) and can affect memory, but not by every sufferer and not as a retrograde amnesia as in ARIA. It is a real shame that Wikipedia is reducing its information set by removing the only work in the world using an original premise of retrograde infectious amnesia. It means that future researchers, readers and writers will have to seek elsewhere to find it and hence wiki has lost its status as a comprehensive database. I urge you to reconsider this decision not for me but for the community that wikipedia has done well to serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffnelder (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already elaborated on this already, but coming up with a new idea doesn't always guarantee notability. The idea has to gain coverage, become widely used, and have you cited as the inspiration for this specific concept. Just coming up with something one day doesn't guarantee notability. It could be the coolest idea ever, but without coverage it's pretty much just something you came up with one day. The thing about revolutionary ideas is that they're only really considered to be revolutionary when they gain coverage. Otherwise they're just something someone came up with one day. Now as far as those authors go, their opinions could help show notability if they wrote reviews and papers about the book/series, but you might run into issues if they're your friends. That brings up issues of a conflict of interest, as they would be emotionally invested in seeing you succeed. A way to get around that would of course be for them to submit the reviews to reliable sources (hint hint- many newspapers love to post reviews by successful authors) as that would provide an editorial board that would help smooth over COI concerns. The bottom line is that this all boils down to coverage in reliable sources, which isn't really out there right now. You can argue that you came up with an interesting new idea, but we would still need coverage to show that this idea is notable. We lack that. However since you are reading this Mr Nelder, I'll blatantly say it: get the authors that have complimented your work to write reviews for the book and publish them in places that have an editorial board. Of course don't have them say outright that it's for the purpose of saving your series' article, but considering how well-known some of the names are, many of the various websites out there would love to post their reviews. Tor.com would probably do it, as would maybe the New York Times or the Guardian. Bleeding Cool might do it as well. SF Crowsnest is also a good option, as is Locus Online and the SF Site. Heck, even the RT would be likely to publish their reviews, although they could probably easily get a better site than them. Get the authors to write the reviews and post them. If you know anyone at any of the websites or papers I've mentioned, ask them to review and cover your book. You're not going to keep this article without those sources. I can't stress that enough, as your energy would be best spent hitting those outlets up for coverage. If we don't have the sources then all we have is a series that just doesn't have enough coverage to merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've discussed the concept with those authors but I've not imposed on their time to actually read ARIA although many other non-author reviewers have done so. I feel awkward in asking them but maybe I should. It's a problem all authors from small press have. I know that 'notable' authors are inundated with requests to read novels and extracts from unknowns and in general they refuse, with the main exceptions being authors from their own publishing houses. It seems odd, and not just to me, that a published novel containing original idea will not be permitted to be lodged in Wikipedia unless its author is sufficiently well-known to have his or her work endorsed by the famous. An idea is an idea no matter who knows about it. Pity wikipedia is only going to be a source of and for the well-known. Incidentally, Jolie Du Pre does not know me personally and stopped working for my publisher some time ago. I would have thought the COI wouldn't apply to her. LL-Publications tell me they did send copies of ARIA to the National Libraries as required legal deposits but that they received no receipt even though the posting was tracked. They are resending. It will take time to persuade notable authors to read and review ARIA: Left Luggage. Will the page have a stay of execution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffnelder (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Sorry. One idea for fans is start a Wikia website, where it it can expanded free of the draconian rules of the Wikipedia, which are very limiting. Link to the Wikia site from the author's Wikipedia external links section or use wikia. -- GreenC  06:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

5 January 2014 - The survival of the ARIA (Novel) Wikipedia page is likely doomed. However, Green's suggestion of creating a Wikia page is interesting. I read both Wikipedia pages AND Wikia pages when I search the Web, and there are millions and millions of other people who do the same. Wikia pages often receive as much Google juice as Wikipedia pages, and when it comes to search engines Google is King. Therefore, when readers type in either Geoff Nelder or Alien Retrograde Infectious Amnesia, if a Wikia page were created for Geoff, assuming the Wikipedia page has been deleted, the Wikia page would probably be the first entry to pop up. That entry would include everything that the Wikipedia page includes now, plus everything that was deleted by the mysterious Wikipedia user. Something to think about, Geoff. Thank you, Green. Joliedupre2 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, deals with what you people are doing, here, in deleting this article. You are unpaid jobsworth Nazis, and I say that advisedly, and not as an insult, but a statement of fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.189.7 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"We're just following orders!" is the same defence used by Hitler's troops as they massacred millions during World War 2.

The Internet is meant to be about connecting humanity, not applying logarithms to rule our thoughts and actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.189.7 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is hopefully going to be my only statement here, but as a human being, a religious studies scholar, as someone who has many Jewish friends, and as someone who has deeply considered (and is still considering) converting to Judaism, I can't tell you how overwhelmingly offensive it is that you are comparing the genocide of hundreds of thousands of human beings and the torture and oppression of millions upon billions of Jewish people to someone getting an article deleted on Wikipedia. Seriously, please do not make associations like this again. Someone losing an article due to non-notability is not the same thing as someone gassing a person to death for their religious beliefs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

5 November 2013. No one is trying to increase notability of the ARIA Trilogy as much as trying to preserve its entry as the only fiction to use infectious amnesia as a premise. Researchers need such information and if they don't find it here then wikipedia is not working. I have asked some notable authors to consider reviewing ARIA but as I said earlier they lead hectic lives and are indundated by small press authors seeking reviews. Bear in mind too that the ARIA trilogy is only part way through its publication. Part 3 is being edited as we speak. Seems rather previous to kill the entry before the public and literati have had a chance to consider it. Geoff Nelder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffnelder (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - If those closest to the subject of the article are unable to find the references necessary to establish the subject's notability, then it is apparent to me that the article exists only as a misguided attempt to achieve the desired level of notability. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  18:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, The WP:COI here is a joke!, That aside this article does indeed fail WP:NBOOK, I'd suggest the above & take this to wikia. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  10:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.