Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deception Point (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  07:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Deception Point
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recreation of page previously closed as redirect from AfD, without addressing notability concerns and seemingly having copyvio issues, 17jiangz1 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Journals:  The abstract notes: "Considering the influence of literature on people lives, this study investigates elements concerning views about scientists and scientific work presented in Deception Point, a novel by Dan Brown. Multiple aspects to represent the scientist figure, life and work, emerge from the novel and problematize characteristics that can be considered as a common sense view, or others perspectives based on more contemporaneous philosophical thoughts on science. Reading and analyzing this novel could be an interesting opportunity to insert elements of history and philosophy of science under different focus. This study discusses some elements, from excerpts of the novel, which may become possibilities for debates in Science classes at schools, and in teacher education."   The abstract notes: "The purpose of this study is to find the type of predicting and the quality of translation on the acceptability aspect. This research can be classified as a descriptive qualitative research with an embeded study and translation of product-oriented. The source of the data in this study is novel in English, entitled Deception Point and its translation in Bahasa. The data were collected through document analysis, questionnaire and focus group discussion. The data was sentence that contains predicting utterances. From the data collected in the novel Deception Point, there were 87 data." Magazines:  The review notes: "A mostly tedious third technothriller from the author of Angels and Demons (2000), etc. ... Although Brown is a more astute storyteller than most of his brethren in the technothriller vein, and he won't lose any fans this time out, he's never able to convincingly many the technical and the human sides of Deception Point."  <li> The review notes: "He has skillfully blended his own wit and style with the rip-roaring adventure of Cussler and the modern technology of Clancy. Highly recommended for all public libraries." </li> <li> The review notes: "The phrase mixed bag was probably invented to describe novels like this one. It has characters that range from inventive to wooden, dialogue that bounces between evocative and cliched, a narrative structure that is sometimes serpentine and sometimes childishly simple, and a plot that lies somewhere between bold and ridiculous." </li> <li> The review notes: "Brown (Angels & Demons) moves into new territory with his latest. It's an excellent thriller -- a big yet believable story unfolding at breakneck pace, with convincing settings and just the right blend of likable and hateful characters." </li> <li> The review notes: "There's intrigue aplenty, both in the Arctic and in Washington, and Brown (The Da Vinci Code) does not disappoint with this genuine page-turner. Reader Richard Poe excellently captures the tension, suspense, and terror with his well-modulated voice." </li> <li> The review notes: "Deception Point has all of the scientific gadgets that any reader could possibly want: ... Pull your comforter around you. You will enjoy the deception and the twists and even the final little slight of hand (in plain view of 30 cameras)." </li> <li> The article discusses sales of Deception Point and other Dan Brown novels. </li></ol><li>Newspapers:<ol> <li> The review notes: "Yet another successful book by Dan Brown, whose genius is in making sci-fi come to life with facts, research and basically, making readers feel as though they are there, is an exciting thriller." </li> <li> The review notes: "Boyd Gaines, a familiar voice to audio listeners, could be said to overdo it somewhat, but then, this story calls for just such a treatment." </li> <li> The review notes: "The next step is to reissue these novels on audio. "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress" illustrate why readers may not have discovered Brown before. Both are serviceable, interesting thrillers with good plots that burst at the seams with cliched writing, stock characters and predictable dialogue." </li> <li> The review notes: "With his writing, Brown has blended his own wit and style to this real life. Definitely a must read for everyone, not just da vinci fans." </li> <li> The review notes: "There are plenty of surprises, and boatloads of deception in "Deception Point," but in the end, it all makes a terrible kind of sense. If "Deception Point" isn't on the fast train to bestseller city, I'll . . . I'll swim with hammerheads. Maybe." </li> <li> The review notes: "Dan Brown's "Deception Point" (Pocket Books: $25) works on all stages. It's a good political story, a good love story and a good thriller. ... The writing isn't great. The writing in this kind of book is rarely great. But the story moves in surprising ways and keeps the reader's attention until the end." </li> <li> The review notes: "Deception Point would make quite an exciting movie. It's got the White House, a shootout on a glacier, a submarine, a frantic aircraft ride or two, a climax on a sinking boat, and a nice twist at a press conference to hold everyone's interest." </li></ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deception Point to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Comment: I removed the copyright violation that had been added here in May 2020. I restored content from the 00:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC) version of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Not all of Cunard's sources are good, but some are, plus there is more in Google Scholar:, although in all honesty that seems like low-quality scholarship coming from India (theses, poorly-indexed journals some of which even openly describe themselves as student journals and have format and quality closer to a blog than any serious academic work , etc.). So I am concerned that there is much more smoke then fire here, but cobbled together this is probably notable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as meets book notability. Great work by Cunard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondRemley39 (talk • contribs) 23:35, May 18, 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above all. -Hatchens (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.