Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A New Birth of Freedom (alternate history 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   delete. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A New Birth of Freedom (alternate history novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has no independent sources, Fails the notability guideline for books and the general notability guideline. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_Say_You_Want_a_Revolution:_Rock_Music_in_American_Culture, another article on a book by the same author (Robert Pielke) created by this editor (User:Rpielke). I did look for more sources, but all the citations I could find were to other books with similar titles - mostly nonfiction about the life of Lincoln. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

The Publisher:

http://www.sciencefictionpaperbackbooks.com/ http://www.sciencefictionpaperbackbooks.com/a-birth-of-new-freedom

Sample Reviews (Amazon's collection and Kirkus):

http://www.amazon.com/New-Birth-Freedom-Visitor/dp/1936021234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313508514&sr=1-1 http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/indie/robert-g-pielke/a-new-birth-of-freedom2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpielke (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another source:

A Second Publisher:

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4865-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpielke (talk • contribs)


 * Kirkus is not independent, since books in the indie category (such as this one) have paid Kirkus in exchange for being reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I take Kirkus at their word (Plus their review accords with virtually all of the others):

"Just like the experts who review the major publishers' titles for Kirkus, all Kirkus Indie reviewers are experienced professionals who give honest, impartial evaluations of the titles they receive. The resulting reviews can be positive (even earning a Kirkus Star), negative, or anywhere in between. But one thing is guaranteed - you'll receive a fair and unbiased assessment of your work and its value potential in the marketplace that you can use for marketing your book or catching the attention of a literary agent or publisher."

I doubt if Kirkus would sully their reputation by allowing authors to "buy" a good review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpielke (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What we're interested in here is not if the reviews are good or bad, but if the book is being written about by independent parties of their own volition. In Kirkus's case, it seems they would not have written a review at all if they hadn't been paid to do it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy (if someone wants to work on it) otherwise delete No indication of wp:notability.  Possibility of establishing wp:notability is unclear. This would give them a chance to find and add suitable sources if they exist. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: MrOllie's "In Kirkus's case, it seems they would not have written a review at all if they hadn't been paid to do it." I can hardly argue against that! Hahahaha... That's the whole point of "paying for attention." It's like advertising: You pay to get noticed. It doesn't guarantee that anyone will like your produce or buy it, but it gets the product noticed. That's what new and small publishers have to do. However, in this case attention has been generated, and the attention has been positive. "How" the book gets into reviewers' hands is irrelevant when the reviewers' reactions are not a result of the "how" -- as they are clearly not in the case of Kirkus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.129.226 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Kirkus is reasonably reliable, but actually almost no libraries have any book in this series (the most widely held title, The Visitor has only 10 holdings. That's enough to show it has never been noticed and is hence not notable Furthermore, the promotional nature of the bio permeates the article: I would have been likely to delete it via Speedy G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - Just a few more of the 1,000,000 books published every year. No claim to notability, listing of excessive biographical and bibliographical details on author (including his notable relatives), even were they to make the author notable, do not make the book notable. Further, this is a page for the series, not for an individual book, so even if the reviews of the individual books might qualify one of them, that does not necessarily qualify the series. Looks like self-promotion for the author. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources. (Agricolae is right about listing of excessive biographical and bibliographical details, but that is a reason for editing the article, not for deletion, so I have removed the irrelevant material. It is also perhaps worth mentioning that if the article is kept it will need to be renamed, as it is about a series of novels, not about a novel.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Google news archive search for "A New Birth of Freedom" AND "Robert G. Pielke" shows four results, all of which are press releases. Don't see any other mention of this anywhere.  D r e a m Focus  19:21, 20 August 2011 (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.