Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Systems Down (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 keep. Yunshui 雲 水 11:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

All Systems Down (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable novel by a non-notable author. I can find very few independent reviews (although of course there is stuff on Amazon and Goodreads). There's no suggestion that it is a best-seller either. PROD was reverted by creator with the edit summary "1) Overzealous deletion goes against Wikipedia's assume good faith principle. 2) Notable reviews. To Be discussed more in talk section" but discussion on Talk page has not resulted in any consensus. Deb (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Deb, here are additional references which I did not include in the original article. Do you think these would add to the notability claim? (Most aren't as strong as the Bend Bulletin and The Good Men's Project, from what I can tell.)
 * http://bookspin.blogspot.com/2018/02/on-my-radar_7.html X
 * http://cherylsbooknook.blogspot.com/2018/02/all-systems-down.html X
 * http://crystalbookreviews.blogspot.com/2018/02/all-systems-down-cyber-war-1-by-sam.html X
 * http://jensbookbag.com/coming-soon-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ X
 * http://mimi-cyberlibrarian.blogspot.com/2018/02/all-systems-down.html X
 * http://redcarpetcrash.com/interview-author-sam-boush-talks-new-book-systems/ - Unsure
 * http://www.iheartreading.net/author-interviews/author-interview-all-systems-down/ - X
 * http://www.lorisreadingcorner.com/2018/02/guest-post-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush.html - X
 * http://www.premeditatedfiction.com/book-review-systems-cyber-warbook-1/ X
 * https://books-reviewed.weebly.com/fiction/all-systems-down X
 * https://deborahkalbbooks.blogspot.com/2018/02/q-with-sam-boush.html X
 * https://journalingonpaper.com/2018/02/02/book-review-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ - X
 * https://lovelyloveday.com/2018/02/08/all-systems-down-by-sam-boush-review/ - X
 * https://mrsreadsbooks.com/2018/02/08/arc-review-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ - X
 * https://okbolover.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/everything-runs-amok-in-pdx/ - X
 * https://saexaminer.org/2018/02/04/book-review-all-systems-down-by-sam-boush/ - X
 * https://whisperingstories.com/advice-aspiring-novelists-sam-boush-guest-post/ - X
 * https://www.eagarediting.com/single-post/2018/02/09/Book-Review-All-Systems-Down X
 * Deb, I fixed all the links. Put X next to all but one, per your comment. Bmax52 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm a Wikipedia Puppy, and this is my first or second article. I Want to make sure I'm doing it right. Bmax52 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs and Wordpress pages aren't normally considered reliable references, which eliminates practically all the above from consideration. See Identifying reliable sources. Deb (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It meets the basic threshold for an article about a book; 1) published, 2) has an ISBN, and 3) is independently reviewed or has a source of notability. WP:BKTS Knobbly (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable" Deb (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Knobbly. Meeting the "threshold" criterion you're offering means that the book actually exists. Was there ever any doubt about that? -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "How long is a piece of string?" We have a basic standard for articles about books and this one meets it, however, the book is clearly not famous or important, so where is the cut-off point? Who determines that lesser-known books shouldn't have an article? It meets the basic threshold for an article about a book and therefore qualifies to be in Wikipedia. Maybe there was a time years ago when you needed a dozen sources of notability, but the tendency across Wikipedia is now is for articles about most topics, books, people or events as long as certain basic criteria are met. Knobbly (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that there is a tendency afoot in Wikipedia to have articles (you're missing a verb, there), Knobbly, on the basis of "basic criteria" alone. As to who determines that lesser-known books shouldn't have an article, I believe it is obvious that "lesser known" implies by definition fewer mentions in reliable sources, which is the criterion for Wikinotability. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you missed the Deletionism and inclusionism debate. If you favour deletionism, then clearly most articles like this one should be deleted. If you favour including a wide range of topics (as long as they meet certain agreed-upon basic standards) then this article should be kept. Knobbly (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I favor a case-by-case and on the basis of extant policy examination, each and every time. The article to which you linked is just a descriptive account of what has gone down. No tilt towards either direction, as a matter of practice, or formally. If I'm allowed to go off on a tangent here, I'd venture that English-language Wikipedia has a bigger proportion of editors on a paid assignment, contributors promoting their own interests, and kamikaze accountss, than it used to have. And this would explain the increasing number of AfDs: The neutral point-of-view is bypassed; quality is down; promotionalism is up. Difficult times ahead. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The increase in AfDs could equally be explained by publishing companies in competition with Wikipedia sending an increasing number of paid infiltrators to sabotage the project (and thereby eliminate the competition) by nominating everything for deletion. Or perhaps paid infiltrators masquerading as 'deletionists' are being sent by a government that doesn't like Wikipedia for political reasons and wants to destroy the project by deleting everything. All of this is, however, speculation because we do not know who our editors are. James500 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure if I get a vote here (article creator, WP Puppy). It appears the book passes WP:NBOOK based on the criteria: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Kirkus Reviews, Good Men Project, and Bend Bulletin. Bmax52 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do get a vote. However, the Bend Bulletin is a local publication with a relatively small circulation and you would expect it to give publicity to a local author. The Good Men Project review is very short and bordering on the promotional. Only Kirkus Reviews (which you seem to have copied the synopsis from) can really be considered a suitable source. This nomination isn't going anywhere at the moment and will probably have to be re-listed for us to get consensus. Deb (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Deb, regarding the Bend Bulletin and your points: 1) The size of newspaper circulation is not mentioned in WP:NBOOK. In fact, it specifically states "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles...".  2) Further, the Bend Bulletin has a circulation in the tens of thousands.  3) The author, Sam Boush, is not from the Bend area, as mention in the article. "Sam Boush is a 36-year-old Portland author." For reference, Bend and Portland are 175+ miles apart. That's roughly New York to Baltimore.  Bmax52 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Deb, regarding the Good Men Project and your points: 1) I don't see length of article as one of the criteria for notability in WP:NBOOK; however, the article is 322 words, which doesn't seem particularly short to me. 2) My reading of the review is that it's promotional in some areas ("All Systems Down comes out tomorrow. You can purchase this book on Amazon and at Barnes and Noble") but not out of line with other reviews; and it's a genuine review through most of the article ("It was a book that painted a dire picture. When the cyber attacks happened, society panicked and many had no clue what to do next. It brought a group of unlikely allies together to try to survive this crisis." etc.).Bmax52 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is that my opinion of the book's notability is different from yours, and that's why the article is here, being nominated for deletion, rather than being already deleted. We need others to chip in and give their alternative views in order to reach consensus as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Deb (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Notable. Coverage in multiple book reviews satisfies GNG and NBOOK. The "local publication" argument advanced by the nominator is without merit. The circulation is not small, and even if it was, that is irrelevant. There's no reason to expect any periodical to review any books (many review none whatsoever), and even if there was, that's not relevant either. James500 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but I'm a little confused about your argument, though it's probably my fault. You seem to be saying that argument A is "without merit" but even if it had merit it would be irrelevant. You add, as way of explanation, that "there is no reason" to have condition B in place, but "even if there was", the condition would also be irrelevant. What am I missing? -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (continuing from The Gnome's comment above). I think James is saying that (1) the "local publication" deprecation is not in the NBOOK or GNG guidelines. Separately (2) the claim that its circulation is small is not true and, even if it was true, that is not a germane criterion. (3) To expect publicity from a local paper is not a necessary expectation and, even if such publicity is to be expected, that is also not a consideration. Now this is rather at the limit of my parse-power (and maybe has gone beyond it) but I rather agree with James's claims that these aspects are not to be found in the notability guidelines. However, I don't think Deb is saying her objections are to be found there – she is simply saying she does not think the book is wiki-notable and is giving her reasons. That is fine by me. It is also fine for other people to have other opinions (as Deb kindly says). I'll go keep because I consider the criteria have been met and, in this case, I see no benefit in going against the presumption of notability. Thincat (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see what you mean. And what James500 probably meant, too. A point with which I strongly disagree is the presumption of notability. Unlike the judicial presumption of innocence, where the prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty, an article in Wikipedia is not presumed to be about a notable subject. Not at all! Editors and contributors, if and when this is needed, have to prove the subject is notable (or rather Wikinotable, as I like to call it, since Wikipedia has different criteria for notability than we have in our everyday lives). This is why we have so many policies and guidelines in Wikipedia about how to establish/prove notability. And not the other way around. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was saying "presumption of notability" in reference to "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right ..." at WP:N. So I should have said the "presumption towards meriting an article". But, hey, it all hangs out at W:N. The guideline says its criteria do not always apply (my paraphrasing on "occasional exceptions" and "common sense") so anyone who thinks you can never evaluate the criteria one way and vote the other is not (strictly) observing the guideline. Thincat (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing notability criteria for an independent article. Possibly can be revived in the future as part of an article about the book's author, if and when Wikipedia has an article about the author, which it does not. Not notable enough; notable authors have their work routinely mentioned in their articles. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The author of a book does not have to satisfy AUTHOR for the book to be notable. The relevant criteria is NBOOK. James500 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I noted the absence of a Wikipedia article on the book's author strictly because if we already had an article about the author the information about the book (in the contested article) could go in it. That's all. I agree, of course, that the author's notability per se does not affect the book's notability. Otherwise, we'd dismiss all books by anonymous authors! -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm also still concerned that the plot section is fairly obviously copied from the Kirkus review. I've asked the creator to fix this. And you can pay to get reviewed on-line by Kirkus. Deb (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deb, the reason I haven't re-written the summary is because it seems like a waste of time while the article is being discussed for deletion. Should I go ahead and do that anyway? Bmax52 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, because theoretically it could be deleted as a copyright infringement, like what happened with Typhoon Fury (novel). Deb (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it's a copy or plagiarism it should be rewritten. However, despite the advice in the deletion notice at the head of the article "Feel free to improve the article", don't improve the referencing. Any further references are better included in this discussion. If you add better references to the article and it still gets deleted you will have WP:G4 to contend with because many editors will (wrongly) think you will then need even more references to allow recreation. Post any references here so you (or anyone else) can add them to a recreated article to give it a better chance. Thincat (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the plot copy. It no longer reflects the Kirkus Review. Bmax52 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there's a numerical majority for keep at this time, I don't see a consensus yet.
 * Comment - Deb, when does a discussion normally close? I was reading WP:GTD which states "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus," and also, "Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep.'" However, it seems we have a rough consensus of keep though obviously your judgement is the deciding factor.Bmax52 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not up to me. Someone independent will close it in due course. Deb (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The Good Men Project seems like a reliable source, 24 Wikipedia articles appearing in a search for their website. The review was detailed enough to count.  Kirkus Reviews is of course a reliable source for book reviews.  So the general notability guidelines have been met.   D r e a m Focus  06:23, 16 June 2018 (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.