Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeadThings, A 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. WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DeadThings, A Novel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The book makes a lot of claims about itself, but the claims fall short. Not even the publisher's page supports the 100,000 copy sales figure. The book probably exists, but there are no reliable sources to back up the allegations of mass-market publication. The unsupported claims about the comic book adaptation aren't quite egregious enough to warrant a speedy deletion as a hoax, in my opinion; however, it's pretty clear that there's nothing to verify that this book is notable—doubly since neither the publisher nor author are notable. Accordingly, this book's article should be deleted, because it fails to demonstrate the notability of the book through any means that can be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have had a change of heart, you initially said, "here may be some stretching of the truth in the article, but I don't see anything that makes me think the article is an outright hoax. If it were a hoax, the book would not exist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)" Now you are no longer confident the book even exits? Interesting. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also side note, it appear the author, who also an actor is very notable as he was also in the Resident Evil movie, along with various other television shows. 2 So if the book isn't notable enough for its own article perhaps a Reese Riley article can be created and the DeadThings,a Novel article can be merged into that. Just saying. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the book doesn't exist; I said the book is not notable. Lots of things exist without being notable enough to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The book is notable due to its success, especially because it was released from a smaller publisher and has receieve lots of acclaim and success. Joss Whedon's involvement has been confirmed, 1 along with the book sales. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a press release that you sent out a couple of days ago (claiming to be from Spin Magazine), after your original claim was questioned. I've written to the magazine to let them know about it. Please stop wasting our time. ...  disco spinster   talk  17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. First off, press releases aren't usable as reliable sources to show notability and I'd like to note that this PR came out only after I pointed out in the article's talk page that nobody had mentioned anything about Whedon or Dark Horse showing interest in the book. I also still have my doubts as to the validity of the claims, as this is a little overly convenient that a press release suddenly pops up out of nowhere. I'll believe it when I actually hear it from Dark Horse and see an article in Spin Magazine rather than a PR that may or may not be from Spin. Even if we ignore whether or not Whedon and Dark Horse are actually involved in a project with this book, the article claims that the book sold 100,000 e-book copies upon release, a total that would easily put it in the bestselling lists of various newspapers and online sites. To date no publishing sites have commented on this book or posted anything that would corroborate with the article's claims. For that matter, there are incredibly few non-merchant or primary sources about this book in general. For a book that supposedly sold more copies than many other mainstream books do in its first 7 months of release, there is a lack of well, EVERYTHING to prove anything beyond the book's existence. Existing is not notability. I'd also like to note that there is a lack of sources for the author as well and the IMDb link goes to someone named Parys Sylver, whose information doesn't seem to match up with anything that has been revealed about Riley on sites such as Goodreads. Even if it's just a screen name for Reese Riley, none of the roles are really big enough to show that he passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Now assuming all of the claims in the article are true, which I doubt, we'd still need independent and reliable sources to show notability. Those just don't exist for either the author or the book. As far as hoaxes go, I wasn't saying the book itself was a hoax as much as everything else in the article was, the amount of books sold, the Whedon/Dark Horse deal, everything except for the book existing and the plot synopsis. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For comparison's sake, here's an article stating that Martin sold 100,000+ ebook copies of his latest SoIaF book. Selling that level of numbers gets attention and considering that sites such as Publishers Weekly love reporting on indie books that sell well, as does the blogging world in general, it makes it even more suspicious that a book would supposedly do that well and get zero coverage from anyone other than the publisher themselves. For another comparison, indie e-book series Wool did what this article claims this book did and got a ton of coverage for accomplishing so many sales. None of this adds up. If it does eventually come out that all of this is true, then great. But until actual reliable coverage can be found for this book or its author, it's a delete for me. I've sent a message to Dark Horse asking them to back up the claims this article is making. If they do confirm it then I'll post that here, but even if it is confirmed, that in and of itself won't give notability. Coverage in reliable sources is what gives notability and a lot of people state an intent to do things with various books or people, yet since plans can always fall through, we don't keep articles on the chance that the deal could be real and could actually happen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tokyo, no offense, but just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it isn't popular. 3 It seems this independent website forum is talking about the project and seem to know a lot about it. My suspicion is that you really are upset that this article wasn't deleted as a hoax and now you are on a campaign. Press Releases aren't released to placate your ego. Has it dawned on you that this information is somewhat new? Also furthermore it appears you have done a complete about-face about the book being a "hoax". You were the first to say that, remember?Suit&#38;tie (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but the thing is that there isn't any coverage of this in reliable sources and still incredibly little about it on the internet at large. A search brings up less than 4,000 results, which is suspiciously low for such a supposedly well-selling book. Most of those are primary or merchant sources. Now before you go saying that this is a lot, it's not. By comparison the Bibliophile Mystery series, which sells fewer copies than this book purportedly did, comes up with just under 17,000 Ghits. A looser search brings up more, but also includes several false positives that have nothing to do with the book. This recently created forum post doesn't really show any form of notability in any case. Again, I was never saying the book itself was a hoax. Just everything else in the article. A hoax can be created about an existing item, person, or scenario. The thing about hoaxes is that they're not limited to complete and total fabrications. If you want to prove that this book is even remotely close to being as popular and notable as you claim, prove it by giving reliable sources per WP:RS. I'm not saying that the press release was put out specifically to soothe my ego, just that it's awfully suspicious that this PR just so happens to pop up after several editors have openly suggested that the claims of bestseller status and comic book adaptations are either a hoax or an outright lie. We've asked for proof and all we've received is a rapidly posted press release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears we have a different view on the definition of the word "several" because the only users claiming that this article is a hoax is yourself and user c-fred. That is two, not "several". Secondly you are comparing a book that was released by a young author (23) that was released seven months ago to an author who is much older who released her book four years ago. Of course it would have more internet coverage just because of time. And #DeadThing is clocking over 300,000 hits, I'm not sure what search engine you are using. The double talk here is really sad, and you have an agenda and it's now apparent. As far as the forum, I used the link to prove that you didn't know what you were talking about. Your claim is no one knows about the project, when in fact it is YOU who don't know anything about it. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can claim what you want, but the bottom line is that there is nothing out there to back up your claims. You can say whatever you want and PR can claim whatever they want. As far as months versus years, if the book has sold nearly as well as you claim then it would have received far more hits than what I'm pulling up and would have received tons of coverage in reliable sources. Not only does the lack of reliable sourcing fail to validate your claims, but the sales figures on sites such as Amazon does not back up your story either. Now you can either continue to accuse me of having an agenda because I happen to be using Wikipedia guidelines to point out its lack of notability and the unlikeliness that the book would have no coverage given its claims, or you can actually show that the claims are true by providing reliable sources. As for Ghits, you've got to figure that many of the hits you're probably pulling up are false positives. If I go simply by the hash tag and don't include the author's name then sure, I'll probably get more hits but then most of those will have little to nothing to do with the actual book.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a small observation because I couldn't help chuckling at this. Suit, you don't know it yet, but you came to the wrong place to say the worst possible thing to the wrong person. Few Wikipedians are better than TokyoGirl at putting in the effort to source and save articles who come here for deletion. You're not doing yourself any favors by telling her she doesn't know what she's talking about, because if someone around here could have saved your article, it was her. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not making claims, your responses tell the tale for me. You claimed that it was a hoax, then changed your mind claiming the book and Author was not notable. But the author who is also an Actor was on 4 hit television shows including, The OC, How I Met Your Mother and was recently in a movie that made over 200,000,000 dollars. All of this information is from IMDB and is verified before they even update to their site. Amazon is not the only retailer, and you have already verified that the book is being sold at NUMEROUS retailers. So which is it? Is it all a hoax, not notable (author and book), or are the sources just valid. (Press Release, IMDB, Amazon.com, Good Reads, ECT). No worries. I have already informed and Admin and I'm sure they can figure out the best course of action. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Delete as a shameless example of self promotion by a WP:COI. Author fails to support article claims of Wikipedia defined notability.  Note to Suit&Tie, without  verifiable, independent, reliable resources this article will most likely be deleted.  Perhaps focusing on providing references that are not PR based might be a way to silence all our doubts as to the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. I highly suggest you review WP:RS, WP:NPOV,  WP:V, WP:IRS, and WP:NOTBOOK.  red dog six  (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that IMDB is considered a reliable source in other articles, however not this one? Suit&#38;tie (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDb can sometimes be used as a trivial source, but it's never used as a reliable source to show notability. (WP:IMDB) If you do see an article that is only sourced by an IMDb link, odds are that the article just hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Feel free to nominate them if you want.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: obvious attempt at self-promotion. Claims made cannot be verified and are likely false. "Reese Riley" does not appear in IMDB -- the link given above is for a different name and anyway the roles were very minor. ... disco spinster   talk  17:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-read the IMDB page, he clearly list his pen name and his books on the page. But apparently IMDB isn't a reliable source. "Self-promotion" are you implying I'm Reese Riley. You got some facts to support that? Suit&#38;tie (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should anyone read the IDBM page, it has no bearing on the decision to retain the article. Again, I highly suggest you focus on providing valid references if you wish the article to survive the AfD.  red dog six  (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So are User:reddogsix and User:discospinster the same person? Isn't that sock-puppetry? Suit&#38;tie (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we are not; however, I can see how you could infer that from my "I" vs. "anyone" comment. Once again, I highly suggest you focus on providing valid references if you wish the article to survive the AfD. Unfortunately, I suspect there are none to be found. red dog six  (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not inferring anything. I based my data on what you posted, which i noticed you changed. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me infer something, since you have not provided any viable references to the article there are probably none to be found. red dog six  (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to accept the fact that this article is going to be deleted. If you recreate it, that will be deleted as well. If you create it under another name, or make an article on Reese Riley, or Parys Sylver, or Maurice Smith, Jr., or Corona Sky Productions, those will be deleted. If you create another account to create these articles, we'll know. You're being asked a fairly simple and reasonable request: to provide reliable sources that show the book, author, actor, company, whatever, is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Fake press releases and discussions on bulletin boards don't make the cut. If you (or Reese Riley, etc.) want to be famous, you (or he, etc.) are going to have to go about it another way. ... disco spinster   talk  18:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This "Talk Page" is getting ridicolous. I have created one page, what are you talking about "re-creating" article. I think someone is upset because I expose their sock-puppetry. Where is the admin, I am sure they can trace Ip address. Suit&#38;tie (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am an admin. If you'd like to request a Checkuser to trace the IP addresses, you have to do it at Sockpuppet investigations. ... disco spinster   talk  18:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Discospinster, my apologies for subjecting you to this ridiculous accusation that resulted from my slip of the use of "I" and "anyone."  red dog six  (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel that WP:NBOOKS is out of date in regard to eBooks, just as WP:ENT is out of date for people like YouTube personalities (this is kind of ironic for an encyclopedia that claims to be better than paper ones because it is at the forefront of collaboration and technology), and I'm always willing to look at more "esoteric" notability markers than what we currently have in the guidelines. However, I feel this fails even short of that. It's impossible to source the claim about the hashtag being very popular on twitter because running a search on it makes it obvious that it's used for things other than this book. The number of copies sold is also unverifiable at this point, which would be the second thing I'd be willing to consider. So as it stands, this is non-notable, an obvious COI and self-promotion issue and it merits deletion. As always, no prejudice to revisiting my !vote if additional evidence of notability comes to light. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I asked at the Dark Horse forums] whether or not the Whedon claims are true and I was told "Joss' editor at Dark Horse says there's nothing to it. Not that this necessarily helps Wikipedia editing, since this comes via email so there's nothing to cite to that effect." Now they were told this via e-mail, but this person has nothing to do with this AfD other than they just happened to be the person who answered my forum post. It could always be that the editor doesn't know, but considering that this would be Whedon's editor and the one who has their hands in all of his projects, it's unlikely that they wouldn't know whether or not he's developing a project. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. There are no reliable sources documenting the claims made in the article, and there would be if the claims were true. FurrySings (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per criterion G11. Based on the article author claiming ownership of the cover artwork and the timing of press releases, there appears to be no plausible way this can be anything but an attempt at promotion. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2013 (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.