Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doublethink: A Tale of Unintended Consequences (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 of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Doublethink: A Tale of Unintended Consequences (novel)
Advert for newly published first novel. No sign it's had the slightest impact on the literary world, and seems to be the sole product of its publisher, "Raise the Bar Press" -- in other words, self-published. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed by author with the comment Book meets several notability criteria: ISBN, Wikipedian availablity (Google Book, Keplers). Doesn't seem to be available from Amazon.com, though. (The Kepler's reference is to a bookstore in Palo Alto, California, where the author will be appearing in September as part of the store's "local and new authors" series.. Good luck on the literary career and all that, but a single self-published (as it appears) book doesn't clear the notability bar. Calton | Talk 04:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Kepler's  is in  Menlo Park, the next town north of Palo Alto. -- Lambiam  Talk  00:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Bwithh 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  05:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- User:Wmconlon
 * Discriminating against self publishing or independent presses seems rather anti-democratic
 * requiring availability at Amazon would seem to constitute a commercial endorsement or advertisement for Amazon.com, which is potentially restraint of trade, if not ironic.
 * first novel doesn't seem relevant, as many other first novels are included at Wikipedia.
 * I (not the author) removed the Prod tag for reasons stated in the history. Disclaimer:  I have an interest and did copy editing of manuscript.


 * My mistake about the creator of the article, which was {{User|To the Point)) -- his or her only contribution to Wikipedia. As for the rest of the wikilawyering above:
 * Discriminating against self publishing... Self-publishing is warning sign of NON-notability; to whit, the work hasn't been vetted for quality in any way, and leads to the suspicion that writer couldn't talk any publishers into shelling out money for the book. And since this is Raise the Bar Press's only product, you can't really call it an "independent press".


 * Self publishing can also be a sign of controversy and commitment, among other things, so it could just as easily SIGNIFY notability as WARN of non-notability.  It's not clear to me how 'suspicions' about the commercial attractiveness of a work consititute an assessment of its quality. Wmconlon 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * {{User|Calton}} seems to expect Wikipedians and publishers to spring forth full formed like Athena, with a panoply of contributions and a full catalog of books for sale. ;).  How many books must a publisher print, before one calls itself independent? Wmconlon 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * requiring availability at Amazon would seem to constitute a commercial endorsement or advertisement for Amazon.com...potentially restraint of trade First off, that's the second most laughable pseudo-legal argument I've seen so far this year. Secondly, it's an utterly irrelevant laughable pseudo-legal argument, since the point of the noting the lack of Amazon sales is not as an sort of requirement, but as an illustration of the lack of notability -- and a direct counterargument to claims of "availability".


 * Using a single commercial source as a criterion for notability would seem to me to be a commercial endorsement. To illustrate notability, consider the book's inclusion into Google Book Search, which is not automatically granted to any publication with an  ISBN.   I'm not sure who made claims of limited availability, but it is available online. Wmconlon 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ...many other first novels are included at Wikipedia' Yes,, but utterly irrelevant, since these are for actually notable authors who have already written or published other books (The Town and the City) or for novels which are famous in their own right (To Kill a Mockingbird). Besides, the "If X exists, you must allow Y" is bogus on its face: we're talking about this book, not others, and if you know of some otherwise unremarkable contemporary debut novels with articles on Wikipedia, let me know and I'll put them up on AfD, too.
 * I have an interest and did copy editing of manuscript. Which makes you, essentially, indistinguishable from the book's author and (presumed) article creator as far as your self-interest goes.


 * Wikipedia is not a free PR vehicle. Try calling that gasbag Michael Krasny up at KQED if you're looking for promotional opportunities. --Calton | Talk 07:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither Mr. Krasny nor your opinion of him seem germane to this discussion. Would you strike that comment, please? Wmconlon 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Let's not turn wikipedia into a vehicle for self promotion.  -- Alphachimp  {{sup| talk }} 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 06:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Wikipedia is not advertising space. Reyk  YO!  08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Max S em 09:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, would like to point out to the honourable gentleman on the left that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia isn't fair. Wikipedia isn't an indescriminate collection of titibits of info. We are not trying to collect the world's knowledge. We are an encyclo. --Qu e ntin Smith 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? My 1968 Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition definition 1: "Encyclopedia ... covering all branches of knowledge, or all aspects of one subject" Wmconlon 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think a book as to be on amazon.com to be notable, but the article doesn't otherwise assert notability. How is it different from any of the other excellent essays and writings on popular culture available out on the internet?  I'm all for antiestablishmentarianism when it comes to the publishing industry but I think the article needs to show that it's made any kind of splash.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Author response

Hello all, It is clear that this group takes its role as the guardians of the sanctity of Wikipedia very seriously. That is to be commended. As the author of Doublethink, I thought it would be helpful to address some the misconceptions that have been posted here.

I wrote the book to help build bridges in our very polarized country in order to get people of different political perspectives talking to each other again. In the fall of 2005, I was going through the normal route of talking to publishers and agents, when one of the agents explained that even if we got a deal the next day it would be 18 months before the book would hit the streets. Given that I felt the book could enhance the discourse around the 2006 election cycle, I CHOSE to self-publish instead.

As to your concern about quality, the book has been carefully vetted by over 60 readers over the course of its development. Many of them are published authors, professional writers, and industry leaders. I also worked with a professional editor in NY who used to work for the big publishing houses. Dr. Conlon did the copy editing as a favor to me because of our tight production schedule. Perhaps if you read the book yourselves, you would see that it is well-written, thoughtful, and provocative.

Clearly quality is often a matter of taste. These are two examples of works by self-published authors you feature on the site, that might not make the cut for me but others might reasonably disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebus_the_Aardvark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfquest

I also CHOSE not to sell the book on Amazon. I feel they have been responsible for many of ills of the modern publishing trade just as I chose to print the book in the U.S. because I felt it made an important statement that was consistent with the message of the book.

As a marketing professional, I am experimenting with non-traditional ways to communicate with prospective readers and encourage reasonable discussion and debate. I do not view Wikipedia as a promotional outlet in that I don’t see it generating many sales but rather as a forum to encourage discourse on the subject of responsible government.

After all, The WikiProject Novels states “It also aims to encourage and promote the writing of articles on all types of Novels.”

It does not specify ONLY novels by famous authors or only books sold on Amazon nor does it say that ONLY long-time Wiki participants are permitted to post articles.

For example, Jennifer Government, also not a well-known work, is linked from the Nineteen Eighty Four page. It takes a neutral tone but was clearly written by an insider. I used this page as a model for my article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences This article, in contrast, has all sorts of non-neutral and self-serving promotional material such as quotes about the book and links to several overtly promotional pages on other sites.

I welcome your suggestions as to how to improve this article so that it would be considered appropriate for inclusion on the site.

Thank you,

J.E. Schwartz To the Point 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I would suggest that the two articles you pointed out might have some issues, but they also have substantial references that give them a basis for notability. Should your novel reach that point, I'm sure that someone will be more than happy to replace the article at that time. Tony Fox 18:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Advice. If you can make sure the novel gets multiple independent reviews in respectable newspapers or magazines, or notable awards (including winning the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest), you can rest assured that it may have its own article. We wish you and your novel all the best, but the nomination for deletion is regardless of the qualities of the novel; what we need is evidence of its reception (good or bad). --Lambiam Talk 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and encouragement but I am afraid I am confused. I thought the nomination for deletion was based on the assertion that it was an inappropriate advertisement, which it is not. If the issue is notability as defined by a certain number of mainstream reviews and literary awards, then I would recommend including that it on your FAQs. If it really is the case, I fear it would be necessary to remove many of the books which currently have articles on the site. It's incredibly difficult to get reviews in the Times, etc. and if you look at the publishing oriented sites, you'll learn that very few books get more than a few reviews. I've received one so far.

I haven't yet posted all the favorable responses to the book that I have received, but here is a small sample:

http://raisethebar.com/doublethink/reactions.html

Doublethink presents a frightening and convincing scenario of how the world might look with a right wing philosophy taken to the extreme. The protaganist descends from his comfortable, sheltered world into the reality of a system tuned only for the wealthy. The story is believable, giving the reader shudders to consider that this might happen to me. —Donna Dubinsky, CEO, Numenta Inc. and co-founder/former CEO of Handspring and Palm

Schwartz is a story-teller as well as an astute political and social commentator. In this gripping tale of selfishness and greed, the author reminds us that redemption is always a possibility. —Edith Gelles, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Stanford University and Author of Portia: The World of Abigail Adams

As a conservative Republican who served at a Cabinet-level position within a Republican administration [at the state level], I found J.E. Schwartz's novel to be a most thoughtful reflection of an evolving political process within the greatest country in the world, America. Or is it? The political facts inherent to Joe’s life stimulate one to privately self-examine their own beliefs and to come to terms with these facts, even if the decision is “not” to come to terms with Joe’s life. A story from which we all can gain insight. —Nicci Kobritz, President, Youthful Aging Home Health Care

If one were to post quotes by other people as a means of substantiating notability, doesn't that turn the article into a prohibited promotional vehicle? To the Point
 * That would be an Unintended Consequence. --Lambiam {{sup|Talk}} 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A self-published paperback released this year that is not available in commercial bookstores is not notable, imo. -- Fr a ncs2000 [[Image:Gay flag.svg|25px|  ]] 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a NN book. &mdash;M e ts501 {{sup| talk }} 02:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A self-published book out this year, not widely commercially available and with no major literary awards = not notable enough for Wikipedia. Grand  master  ka  02:43, 28 May 2006 (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.