Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbriar (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, now that reviews have been found and sources have been added. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Blackbriar (novel), The Spirit House, Parasite Pig

 * – ( View AfD View log )

These are 3 unsourced articles on books that appear to in no way pass any of the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. I cannot find any reviews published in reliable sources, they do not appear to have won any literary awards, they do not appear to have made a significant contribution to the arts, they do not appear to be taught in schools, and the author himself is not inherently notable enough to have his notability extend to his works. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are heaps of reviews, including from Orson Scott Card. However, WP bores me. There can be no victory over the animu clan. Shards. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence that such reviews exist?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 07:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote the original entry for cat here on WP, I don't have to follow the dictates of the johnny-come-lately citation mafia. I know what is notable; I know what is not. However, I am feeling generous... http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?6573 ASHLEY GREYSON 1988, ORSON SCOTT CARD 1988; Hugo/Nebula winnign sci fi author; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?154130 Parasite Pig multiple reviews -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up that you have some magical sort of seniority over me or the project in general when you have no way to back up those claims. That seems to be a recurring theme in your work, as you do not see fit to keep up with the times and write articles that have references to back up things you state. The current rules and regulations of Wikipedia are what you should be adhering to, and there is no amount of things you state (writing the first version of cat, which cannot frankly be proven, being a classicist) to change that fact. I would find that your insistence that sources are not necessary is not at all welcome in any academic community, and this being an online encyclopedia should be no different than if you were to be proposing something to be published in an academic journal. This means that you need to show that individual books are notable on their own, unless the author is some sort of paragon in the field that everything he has written is notable because he is. I do not find this latter piece to be the case for Mr. Sleator.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 08:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were the first animu defender I've tangled with here on WP, I would gladly outline the reasons why 250,000 Pokechu articles doesn't add up to a single 1977 Hong Kong bestseller. Unfortunately, you are something like the 5000th (5th this week). So, unfortunately i have to be a bit abrupt. All fields are not created equal. The fact that some US universities are now giving out Master's degrees in animu studies does not mean that pop culture is now a topic of serious academic inquiry. Fifty thousand years from now, pop culture lists/catalogs will just be an entry in some database somewhere, but the work of mathematicians, lyric poets, and other academic fields will still be considered notable. There's no way to communicate this point *I've tried*, but pop culture is just.. trivia. Trainspotting is also trivia Planespotting is trivia. It's just life; I didn't make the rules. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N & WP:OR. If sources exist, as alluded to above, they need to be added to the articles. Tagging article for clean up at that point seems like a good idea as well. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep Those two reviews for Blackbriar from  Fantasy Review, December 1986 and Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, August 1988 are enough to meet the standard at WP:Book. As additional factors of notability, it is held in 599 libraries , which is very high for young people's SF so many years after first publication, and has been translated into German and Danish. I added the refs for all that. As Paradise Pig is held in even more libraries, it is presumably notable also,  The spirit house is held in as many libraries,and is discussed in the standard textbook,  Polette, Nancy, and Joan Ebbesmeyer. Literature Lures: Using Picture Books and Novels to Motivate Middle School Readers.. We're supposed to be objective: our standards should not depend on who wrote the article or on how they are behaving.  As the reviews asked for by the nom. have been forthcoming, I suppose he will withdraw the nomination, instead of letting the other editor get him involved in irrelevant arguments. ISFDB  is an obvious enough source that it should have been checked before making the statemnt there were no reviews.  DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Being in libraries does not translate into notability and there was no knowledge of this information at the time of the nomination. It still stands that the articles are unsourced and full of what may be original research.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews have been found and so the topics are notable. Warden (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just wanted to say that the articles should probably be tidied up and have the non-usable sources removed, such as the links to WorldCat. They don't show notability at all and they don't really enhance the article as far as trivial information go, as most of what they're backing up would be the type of thing that's deleted as trivia overall, such as being in 901 libraries. We don't mention how many libraries The DaVinci Code is in because it's just needless trivia and all things considered, it's actually a little hard to verify that the info in WorldCat is completely up to date. It's information that is not only needless trivia, but would potentially be constantly changing. I'm not arguing for or against notability, just that in an attempt to save the articles people are linking to sources that don't really show notability. I'm not entirely convinced of the link to the teaching page- I want to see if we can find links to teacher outlines and other things from actual schools that show that it's being taught in a wide range of schools. It's better to find the lesson plans from individual schools than to link to a commercial website. I also sort of have a problem with someone linking to a page that shows that Locus reviewed Parasite Pig, but doesn't actually have any quotes from the review or anything to that extent. I'll see what I can find, but we just need to be careful that we're linking to sources correctly. (I hate to sound like the sourcing brat, but poorly linking to stuff and overly linking to trivial sources that don't show notability just comes across as trying too overly hard.) I also want to state that it might be better for some of the books to be merged into other articles, such as Parasite Pig to be merged and redirected into Interstellar Pig into a section entitled "sequel" or "followup". It's better to have one strong article that references both books than to keep a weak one around. It can always be merged back when/if more sourcing becomes available. I've got time this afternoon so I'll see what I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've found enough sources to show that Parasite Pig meets notability guidelines. I've started on Blackbriar and have removed all of the original research that was in the article and cleaned it up some. I've a few sources, so I'll work on adding those.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got Blackbriar covered. I had to use my school's database, but it's totally covered now and it reads a lot cleaner than it did before. The thing for anyone wanting to add back some of the previous information, please make sure that you source it with reliable sources, otherwise it's just pure original research. I'm going to work on Spirit House now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm a little shaky on The Spirit House, as the reviews for that book are fairly light (although there were some that I couldn't find), but I've found more than enough for Blackbriar and Parasite Pig to show that they meet book notability guidelines. I've cleaned up all of the articles and removed anything that smacked of original research. There's no reason to delete these now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (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.