Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Ra (book series)


 * 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. There seems to be consensus, here and so far at WP:RSN, that Kirkus Indie reviews do not establish notability because they're paid for and the customer has the option to not have them published. There is no substantial argument for any other basis for notability for this topic. The article can be recreated if and when there is new coverage.  Sandstein  13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Blood of Ra (book series)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable series, no meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This is currently under review as an Articles for creation process. I have added a Kirkus review, where they state "Debut author Sasinowski creates captivating action and an empowered central character that will appeal to many teenage girls, as will her adoring male supporters, who never dominate the proceedings."Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The book series appears to be notable under criterion (1) of Wikipedia:Notability (books), which states "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." A Google search on "Heir of Ra" yields many book reviews from sources independent of the book itself, including Kirkus and Readers' Favorite, appearances in best-sellers lists, and independent media coverage. I have added a citation for a London TV interview with the author about the series, entitled "Best Seller author Maciek Sasinowski on the success of his award-winning Blood of Ra series."Vera3636 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "where" depends greatly when it comes to reliable sources. For example, Reader's Favorite is not a reliable source on Wikipedia because they openly charge for "expedited" reviews and have stated that they never give a review below four stars, so they pretty much guarantee positive reviews. The Kirkus review comes from their Kirkus Indie outlet, which a pay service and as such, wouldn't be seen as reliable on Wikipedia because the fee poses a conflict of interest. As far as other reviews go, keep in mind that many of the ones I saw were self-published blog reviews, which almost never count towards notability. SPS like blogs rarely undergo editorial oversight and as anyone can start a blog, it's not seen as selective or a reliable source unless it's routinely cited as a RS by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly sources. Now when it comes to bestseller lists, it depends on the list. Amazon bestseller lists are specifically not usable because they're relatively easy to manipulate and are often dynamic, meaning that they change often and are difficult to really verify. There's also the issue of there being so many categories that saying that something is a bestseller in X category becomes sort of faint praise as far as Wikipedia goes. When the bestseller part was added to the notability guidelines Amazon was specifically stated to not be usable. Pretty much it has to be a major one like the NYT bestseller list, a list that is independently notable or through a very well thought of and reliable publisher. Finally, listing Google hits by itself is not a criteria to keep, as not all of the sources that pop up may be usable for the reasons stated above. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking time to explain this in detail. Vera3636 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! The whole RS and notability guidelines on Wikipedia can take a while to get used to, as there is often a lot of fine print and jargon, it certainly did for me! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Although it may be Kirkus Indie, as they state "While we do not guarantee positive reviews, unfavorable reviews can be taken as valuable feedback for improvements and ultimately do not have to be published on our site." Kirkus are highly respected, and I doubt would give a good review for something that was awful just for $24.99.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the requirement for independent sourcing or how paid sourcing works, because, yes, yes they would. Also for the record, the fee for Kirkus Indie review is $425. They'll review anything as long as you provide the manuscript and the payment. CUPIDICAE💕  16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point I am making. How does this review any different from one in The Times, which is seen as independent? The Times will be barraged by publishers to review the material, which if reviewed and published is classed as notable. Kirkus state any review, doesn't matter if it is paid for or not is independent and can be good or bad. It's no different a review.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it is not independent. If the subject has to pay for someone to write about their book, that is by definition not independent and does not contribute to notability for the same reason him writing about his own book, goodreads or Amazon reviews do not count in the slightest. Whether the review is positive or not is entirely irrelevant. It's not a matter of paying for favorable coverage, it's paying for coverage - period. CUPIDICAE💕  17:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Times is making an editorial decision about what to cover. To some extent so is Kirkus, but it is doing so as sponsored content which our reliable sources guideline tells us not to be used. Because Kirkus clearly labels such content they can remain a reliable source, but content that itself has been sponsored should not be used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense about the sponsored content. I had considered "sponsored content" to be ads (i.e., where the sponsor writes the content), as opposed to a review which is not written by the sponsor, but it seems like a moot point since there is a consensus about not using Kirkus Indie as a reliable source. Thank you very much for taking time to provide feedback. Vera3636 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that Kirkus would take great exception to your "yes, yes, they would" statement, Praxidicae. And it's not in the spirit of this discussion to make unfounded statements that question an established reviewer's integrity. It's actually the opposite. Because of their reputation, Kirkus is notoriously hard on small publishers and getting a positive Kirkus review as an Indie published book is more difficult. There certainly are many paid review services that guarantee good reviews. Kirkus is not one of them. Vera3636 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's almost as if you read nothing that was said here. Their own website LITERALLY SAYS it was published for pay. Their pricing starts at $425. This isn't an independent review, its an arm of Kirkus that allows for writers to submit, with payment, their book to get reviewed. It is not part of their standard review system. It is literally a "Author pays a fee, starting at $425 - > Kirkus publishes the review under their sponsored arm." No one ever claimed they paid for a good review. They paid for a review. It is not independent and it is not usable as an independent reliable source as per our policies. Period. CUPIDICAE💕  18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would generally not accept sponsored references but as the wording says "Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process." Generally unacceptable does not mean is not acceptable. Kirkus do not review any self published work, and will only accept this via Kirkus Indie. They use many of the same reviewers too. Also if you have worked in the publishing trade you will know how many books get reviewed.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Kirkus do not review any self published work You are dead wrong, . Kirkus Indie literally specializes in self-published works. One need not work in any industry to determine whether a subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. This doesn't. CUPIDICAE💕

please visit the Kirkus website and look at what it tells publishers submitting work= "Kirkus does not review books in the categories listed below in its traditional program. (Kirkus Indie does not put genre or publication date limits on submissions; see more information about that program here.)

— already published books

—reprints of books that Kirkus has previously reviewed

—self-published titles

—print-on-demand titles

—poetry (except children’s and teen)

—textbooks

—specialized technical or professional works

—any work intended primarily for an academic audience

—reference books

—instruction manuals

—screenplays or other dramatic scripts

—computer and technology handbooks

—books of regional interest" Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) And that's here https://www.kirkusreviews.com/press-center/about/ Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the link I gave you above, they literally review self-published books through their Indie program, it says as much on their own website. Further, are you trying to tell me that his book is not self-published? Because the first page of his book literally indicates otherwise - it is copyright to Sasinowski and through "Kingsmill Press" which is not an independent publisher, but a self publishing outlet. Did you even read your own comment? It is talking about Kirkus' traditional reviews and only those. They have the Indie program which literally explains that they PRIMARILY REVIEW SELF-PUBLISHED BOOKS. And in any case, your personal (and incorrect) view on this is not relevant, consensus was established that Kirkus Indie reviews are not independent and thus unreliable and unusable for the purposes of establishing notability. CUPIDICAE💕 18:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * you have not read what I said. Kirkus does not review self published works. I have never said this not self published. Kirkus Indie is the only way that self published works can be reviewed by them. Therefore any self published works will always be via Indie. As they treat their reviews with the same independence once they do them, is why I believe this should be accepted.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are well into WP:IDHT territory now. I literally explained why this is not reliable, and linked to consensus. No one is saying as a whole Kirkus is unreliable, but Kirkus Indie is unreliable because it is a pay-for-publication and not independent. Your desire for Wikipedia to observe some outside belief that it counts isn't going to change anything. Your argument that it counts toward notability is erroneous and not supported by policy, Wikipedia norms, guidelines or established consensus and for that reason, what you're saying is incongruent with keeping this article. CUPIDICAE💕  18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal statements. I can assure you, I did read every word on this page as it is of great interest to me. Just because I did not agree with your statement does not mean that I did not read it. I said that Kirkus would take exception to your statement questioning their integrity, which was not necessary. I believe that their reviews are independent, whether through Kirkus or Kirkus Indie. There are many examples of scathing reviews by Kirkus Indie for Indie/self-published books; many more so than negative reviews of books published by the few large publishers (which are the only ones that Kirkus will review without a request). Vera3636 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing personal in my statement. It is a fact, as evidenced by your multiple comments here that you either haven't read or comprehended what has been said here. Per Wikipedia's policy on sourcing and established consensus that I have linked to now twice, Kirkus Indie is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Period. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant and this back and forth is becoming disruptive. CUPIDICAE💕  18:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "We are well into WP:IDHT territory now." And how's that? I have not been disruptive editing at any time. I have put an argument forward for the Kirkus review. That is what AFD is about - debate. And as I quoted earlier regarding sponsored references "generally unacceptable" does not mean it is not acceptable. That is a debate to be made at AFD. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because despite presenting you with uncontroversial fact, you are still insisting that you are correct, like saying 2+2=5. I've already linked you to a discussion which established consensus on Wikipedia that Kirkus Indie reviews cannot be used to establish notability. This isn't a debate, this is Wikipedia's consensus. If you wish to change that, go start a new RFC, otherwise, stop with the back and forth unless you can provide actual sources to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕  18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All this could have been avoided by your pointing to the established consensus in your original comment, rather than questioning Kirkus Indie's integrity. For future use, may I suggest you start with pointing to the consensus? It will save all of us time and effort. Whether we agree with the consensus, or whether or not it is true outside of Wiki, is irrelevant for this purpose. If there is a consensus, then this discussion was not necessary. And please, as requested before, refrain from personal statements such as ones discussing my feelings. Vera3636 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no personal statements. There is fact, and then there is this wall of text with two people failing to read or understand established policy that I already explained in my first set of comments. Your inability or unwillingness to read is not my responsibility. And as Wikipedia editors, we literally need to be questioning the integrity of sources in line with our policies, which is precisely what I have done. And we agree, this discussion is unnecessary but you chose to ignore my multiple comments on your talk page and disruptively moved this article to mainspace, so now here we are having a ridiculous back and forth about a self-published book from a non-notable author that has zero coverage in independent reliable sources. See ya on the flip side. CUPIDICAE💕
 * The article was moved to mainspace after edits and additions of more sources. You did not "explain" the policy, you questioned Kirkus Indie's integrity, which is what prompted the discussion. And, as stated, this is what AFD should be about. As I mentioned, if you had provided a link to the consensus in your initial comment about Kirkus, which is something I would expect an experienced Wiki editor to do, this could have been more efficient. And I do consider your referring to my feelings as quite personal, regardless of what you may claim, and inappropriate for a Wiki editor or a Wiki discussion, so you may want to refrain from using that particular language in future discussions. Vera3636 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that discussing paid reviews is something that should predominantly take place at the reliable sources noticeboard. The main issue with them is one of independence, although reliability is certainly also an issue. I don't think that Reader's Favorite would be usable by any stretch but it's worthwhile to discuss Kirkus Indie since the institution is known and notable. I'll start up a discussion at the noticeboard and link to it here. I'm not trying to stop the discussion, it's just that the usability of Kirkus Indie is something that should take place at RS/N rather than here, since there needs to be consensus and discussing the site's notability can run the risk of derailing the AfD. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've opened it here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Kirkus indie is not a RS, per RSN discussion, other coverage lacking. None of the awards given to the book appear to be notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The best of the sourcing put forward would have been a Kirkus review, except, the one put forward isn't. It's a paid for review.  Assorted blogs don't represent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2021 (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.