Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catastrophe (book)


 * 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 SNOW keep. Furthermore, a brief perusal of Google News shows multiple recent mentions, calling into question the accuracy of statements regarding searches for sourcing. As the book is a recent release, the assertions of lack of coverage are uncompelling and ignore the fact that there will be more mentions by the time the AfD was scheduled to close. Yes, the article was a POV mess when nominated, but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Catastrophe (book)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert notability, references are self-refs and book website listings. Fails every criteria of WP:BK. Article was initially prodded, but this was declined with the reason "contest prod - book debuted at number 1 on NY Times bestseller list and is currently #9 an Amazon". However, online ranks and # sold are specifically not critera of WP:BK. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as nominator. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as made clear in my deprod this book is a best seller and clearly notable. Hitting at #1 on the New York Times list (#1 hardcover, #3 overall) is about as strong as an indicator of notability as you can get for a book.  If that wasn't enough a couple GNews searches:  reveals many usable sources (and some false positives).  What the nominator is really saying is the article as written doesn't have good sources, but needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly implore you not to put words in my mouth, i.e. "What the nominator is really saying...". I am quite aware of what I have said, what I will say, and what I intend to express to others.  Now, did you even read the part where I noted that amazon and NYT bestseller lists are not a criteria of establishing the notability of a book?  I have already linked to the notability guideline several times now, and this very issue is also the subject of a discussion on its talk page, where opinion is, again, against such a criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well "Article does not assert notability, references are self-refs and book website listings" sounds like a description of the current article and not the subject to me.
 * Regardless, being a #1 best seller isn't an official inclusion guideline (although it probably should be), but it is inconceivable that any #1 best seller would ever fail the "multiple reviews" test. All specific inclusion guidelines are designed to be an indication that the GNG can be met.  They are a "shortcut" to make life easier.  However, any subject can be notable through the GNG even if they don't meet any specific notability guideline (although this book would clearly meet WP:BK #1) and thus being a best seller is a valid indicator of notability, even if not an official one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes the General notability guideline. Dick Morris being ungrateful slime doesn't mean his worthless book should be deleted. Abductive (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep entry but desperately needs an immediate NPOV rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the new admin. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and let it snow. Thaddeus, congrats. If you can't find my yes-vote, then I must have had one of my socks voting for you. Oh, of course a nr. 1 on the bestseller list is pretty much a guarantee for notability. I made some edits to the article for POV reasons, and I wonder how Morris is going to stop Obama. Does he know the president was democratically elected? Sorry, I'll get off MY soapbox now. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of what he is or is not is seems to satisfy the notability criteria. Biofase flame | stalk 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with alacrity. I have just added some sourcing to the article and a touch of expansion. It now asserts its notability and is properly sourced. Happy thing is, that there is lots more. perhaps these sources were not available when the nominator did his WP:BEFORE. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rather mystified that people can so clearly weigh in against established guidelines, just because they "think" something should be a part of said guidelines does not make it so. Let's look at the 6 references now in the article.
 * 1, Interview with the author, likely discounted per "..or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book" of WP:BK
 * 2, google books. Are these user-submitted reviews?  No critical analysis or review, just a straight re-telling of the book contents.
 * 3, Newsmax, discounted per WP:RS
 * 4, same
 * 5, a blog noting placement on a best seller list. As noted previously, # of copies sold is not an indicator of notability.
 * 6, same
 * The additions to the article by MichaelQSchmidt are not the magic bullet he seems to think they are, as they run counter to established notability guidelines. This novel simply does not reach the criteria set, namely "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  #1, the interview published by USNews is perhaps on the fence, but even if accepted, that is far, far below the threshold of "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood... but then my additions were only the work of a few minutes of WP:AFTER online while keeping WP:NB in mind. As the book has only of late headed best-seller lists, and has only been available for less than a month, I belive that additional sources toward notability will be brought forward if the stub is allowed to grow. Were the article to have been written 6 motbhs after publication rather than only a few hours after such, crtitical commentary from nationally known critics would have filled the article's sources. Considering the nature of the book and the political views of the author, the landslide of commentary is only just beginning... and guideline allows other considerations of notability beyond immediate coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Though it looks like a chance of snow I ask that any early closure be put off for the moment, as I have asked for some input over at Notability (books). Tarc (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I seconded the prod, as the only significant coverage I could find was by Hannity on Fox News. I disregarded the fawning coverage by Newsmax as that's about as unreliable as it gets. Aside from the USNews piece, all the rest of the coverage is in passing. Although it obviously excites some of the extreme right, I just don't consider that this book meets the notability threshold. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In considering WP:BK's inclusion criteria #5, the author's own notability, and the nature of the book's subject matter, I believe per WP:POTENTIAL we are safe in allowing the stub to stay and grow through normal editing processes... specially since Wikipedia has no mandate that articles immediately spring into existance in a perfect state, and in fact encourages that articles that can grow to improve the project be allowed to do so. It does not have to be perfect now. Considering the controversial nature of the book and the background of the author, a keep and tag for further improvement is a guideline supported conclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  19:59, 30 July 2009 (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.