Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fe Fi FOE Comes (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. —  Aitias  // discussion 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fe Fi FOE Comes (novel)

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

This article is about a book novel that does not meet requirements of general notability nor specifically for books. The article is promotional in nature being written like a dust jacket blurb. There are no reviews of the book in reliable sources, nor has it won any awards or otherwise distinguishes itself. Whpq (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete = Fails notability for books. Also, at least part of the article is a copyright violation of the text found at  and .  The second link has a date that predates the creation of the WP article, so this definitely isn't a case where someone copied WP text to a different website.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:N and a copyvio. Verbal   chat  07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Book from a publisher with only one book in print => almost certainly self published. JulesH (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What is notability? The guide: Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it ... This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a book warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.
 * It is irrelevant that the novel has not won awards, and according to their website it is under review by the Science Fiction Writers of America who award the Nebula prize. Fact is that the book has been/is being read by hundreds of people all over the world, according to the publisher, and I assume they know who they ship to and where. I have read the book, and as a contributor to Wikipedia thought it would be informational for people who have asked about the book to have an article available here. People do not come to Wikipedia to buy books. The article does not indicate where/how/how much for the book, does not glorify it, makes no attempt to sell the book. The information in the article was taken from websites, presumebly provided by the author and or publisher, Amazon provides Search Inside for the novel. There are no copywrite violations.
 * All that being said the novel itself has a warning about reading or promoting it which I took from the Amazon site for the novel:


 * From the Back Cover ... A warning to the reader ... You may not wish for people to know you are reading this book. In some jurisdictions such material is banned, and in some there may be severe penalties should you be caught with it in your possession. Even in places with free speech some authorities, and some of your neighbors will be suspicious if they open and read portions of this book, and find you reading it. In the near future the consequences could be much worse. You may not wish to read it at all.


 * If you purpose is to suppress any information on this book then by all means delete it. It will not keep everyone from reading it.


 * Some websites that have information on the novel:


 * http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/179-1754283-7001442?asin=098006810X&afid=yahoosspplp_bmvd&lnm=098006810X|Fe_Fi_FOE_Comes_:_Books&ref=tgt_adv_XSNG1060
 * http://www.amazon.com/Fe-FOE-Comes-William-Samples/dp/098006810X/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i
 * http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/listingResults.asp?&stage=csListingResults&WID=24792201
 * http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?binding=&mtype=&keyword=fe+fi+foe+comes
 * http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=fe+fi+foe+comes&x=0&y=0
 * http://cgi.ebay.com/Fe-Fi-FOE-Comes_W0QQitemZ190276678561QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Fiction_Books?hash=item190276678561&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1309|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50
 * foe,translations,translation of foe,translation English-Spanish of foe ... Fe Fi FOE Comes http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1.Best_Books_Ever?page=2
 * http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/264.Books_that_everyone_should_read_at_least_once
 * http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/3.Best_science_fiction_books
 * http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/986.Libertarian_Fiction_2008
 * http://www.sfwa.org/reviews/
 * http://www.tessgerritsen.com/blog/2008/12/03/earthquakes-in-the-publishing-world
 * http://blog.mises.org/archives/009037.asp


 * I grow very tired of Wikipedia which is now completely infested with . DasV (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You will note that The Shack and Tarzan are both self-published novels which have articles in Wikipedia. If you bothered to check you would know that the publisher is the US subsidiary of a European publisher with hundreds and hundreds of titles. DasV (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the book only has hundreds of readers then it's not doing very well. Notability for books is outlined here. Please desist from making further personal attacks or you will be blocked. See WP:CIVIL Verbal   chat  08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You have accomplished your purpose Verbal; enjoy the fruits of your labor. DasV (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As a final note I sent the publisher an email with a copy of the article page and this discussion page. I think it will add to their advertising ... BANNED BY WIKIPEDIA ... I'm sure they will want to thank you all. Please do hasten the deletion process; oh I forgot Verbal has already blocked the content anyway. DasV (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is neither banned nor blocked. Verbal   chat  09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I looked into the claim, above, that the book is being reviewed for a Nebula award. This statement isn't as meaningful as one might think.  The book is in the SFWA Circulating Book Plan.  This is a bunch of books that are mailed around between members of the SFWA who choose to be in the Book Plan; the books were sent in by the publisher.  It's therefore as unselective as a slushpile.  The purpose of the Circulating Book Plan is to get as many of the books that were published within the eligibility period read as possible so they can be considered for good or ill.  Also, by definition all genre books are under consideration for a Nebula, so being under consideration for one is meaningless.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: None of the links that DasV typed in above show us anything meaningful about this book.  I'll explain:
 * The following six links are to places to buy the book; all of them are sales websites that will sell anything at all that you pay them to sell:
 * http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/179-1754283-7001442?asin=098006810X&afid=yahoosspplp_bmvd&lnm=098006810X|Fe_Fi_FOE_Comes_:_Books&ref=tgt_adv_XSNG1060
 * http://www.amazon.com/Fe-FOE-Comes-William-Samples/dp/098006810X/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i
 * http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/listingResults.asp?&stage=csListingResults&WID=24792201
 * http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?binding=&mtype=&keyword=fe+fi+foe+comes
 * http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=fe+fi+foe+comes&x=0&y=0
 * http://cgi.ebay.com/Fe-Fi-FOE-Comes_W0QQitemZ190276678561QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Fiction_Books?hash=item190276678561&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1309|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50
 * I don't understand what this line is trying to tell us. The book doesn't appear in the linked page.
 * foe,translations,translation of foe,translation English-Spanish of foe ... Fe Fi FOE Comes http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1.Best_Books_Ever?page=2
 * The following are "vote for things you like on this list" pages. There are three, three, and two votes for this book on these three pages, respectively.  For comparison, 667 people voted for Ender's Game on the second list.
 * http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/264.Books_that_everyone_should_read_at_least_once
 * http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/3.Best_science_fiction_books
 * http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/986.Libertarian_Fiction_2008
 * I deal with this one in my comment above this one.
 * http://www.sfwa.org/reviews/
 * In the next two links, DasV posts something about the book in the comments section of a blog.
 * http://www.tessgerritsen.com/blog/2008/12/03/earthquakes-in-the-publishing-world
 * http://blog.mises.org/archives/009037.asp
 * So, it looks like there's no useful information in these links. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are twisting words. There was no claim that the novel was being reviewed for a Nebula Award. This is what I said, 'it is under review by the Science Fiction Writers of America who award the Nebula prize', which is true. This from the website, 'Since these pages follow the Nebula Awards rules for "rolling eligibility," rules I feel certain are explained somewhere on this vast web site, I only keep 12 month's worth of stuff up here.' which means the novel is eligible ... nothing more. The book has only been out for 6 months or so. Of the novels you saw under review is the Sword & Soceress 23rd issue ... I guess this is meaningless also, but the series has an article in Wikipedia ... why don't you delete it? The links simply show that the book is being read and commented on, as is any other book many of which have Wikipedia articles. Just get on with the deletion, don't waste your time finding reasons or actually reading the book ... just ban it and move on. DasV (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't twist words. I wrote: "I looked into the claim, above, that the book is being reviewed for a Nebula award."  You said: "it is under review by the Science Fiction Writers of America who award the Nebula prize."  In other words, I paraphrased you properly.  Then I demonstrated that your statement wasn't of any use in determining whether or not the article on this book should be kept on Wikipedia.  This is not an attempt to ban the book.  The book will still be read, as you claim, by hundreds of people, and will still be available for purchase.  I was polite, reasonable, and sensible.  I gave references for everything I said.  If you have a real argument to make, rather than just throwing around wild complaints that I'm trying to ban something, please make that reasoned argument.  Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, every book of speculative ficiton is "eligible" for a Nebula Award. But there is absolutely no evidence that is actually being considered for one.  -- Whpq (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing the notability criteria for books, and for obviously being a copyvio . Not too impressed by the, ahem, verbose defence put forwards above... It would be a good idea if the author familiarised themselves with WP's core policies before continuing along their current path.  one brave  monkey  13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand now the perspectives of the contributors here. This is not the place for an article on this book. You should move quickly to delete it and insure that no references to the novel make their way into Wikipedia. Thank you all for your insight, I apologize for using this forum, for my verbosity, and for looking foolish. DasV 155.87.150.1 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please log in to leave comments? Thanks, Verbal   chat  14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We will be glad to include it if it becomes notable enough to win a major prize, or to get substantial press comments. All books are treated just the same.  Doing otherwise is prejudice for the book, otherwise known as promotion or advertising. ,DGG (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been replaced by the copyvio notice, suggesting it was taken from Amazon's website. Given the nature of the discussion above, it's hard to pass judgement on this article based upon whether the copyvio tag was accurately applied, or if an edit occurred that made it a copyvio. As I wouldn't go so far as to call this a WP:SNOWBALL delete yet (only a few people have actually expressed opinion), I'm almost going to recommend peroguing this discussion (that's a word I learned from our parliament here in Canada) until the copyvio issue is rectified. If the copyvio notice was placed in good faith and the article in question was copyvio to begin with, then it may qualify for speedy deletion right now, with no prejudice to recreation with original wording. As it stands, I can't make one call or another on it. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment From the Publisher:

Dear XXXXX

Thank you for your interesting and amusing email. The comments on the discussion are pretty much to be expected. I do not understand the supposed copyright infringement, since all of the information is available on sale and commentary sites, and even if it weren’t it would still be Fair Use.

I personally do not use Wikipedia for informational purposes, and I am told by those who do that the content is unremarkable, since it is usually a reprint from other sources. However, I’m sure it serves the public for the purpose of general subject knowledge. On this point I would have to agree with those voting for deletion of your article; Fe Fi FOE Comes is certainly not mainstream material.

When we decided to publish the novel we were aware that it had been rejected by mass-market publishers, and that institutional sources such as libraries would likely not pick up the book. We also knew that conventional reviewers would probably not review it. We published it because it is an entertaining story, and because the subject matter is diametrically opposed to conventional standards. The latter being an obstacle itself to mass-market appeal in this day and age. No one expected to get rich from this project.

Surprisingly, the book has gone forward by word of mouth, and from reader to reader without the marketing assets available to the mainline presses. I find that copies are with booksellers in diverse locations such as London, Germany, Italy, and several in the United States. We’ve had letters and emails from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as soldiers and other fans in US and Europe. As a mostly mainstream rejected novel, it is in very good company historically.

I wouldn’t be too hard on those voting for deletion of your article. These are ordinary everyday people who have the ability to form a consensus regarding information that is allowed in Wikipedia; it is not surprising that the negative will almost always outweigh the positive in such situations. Too Fe Fi FOE Comes is legally banned in several countries, due to content, and the popularity of the novel will be proportional to the negative input regarding it. Both Liberals and Conservatives will almost surely agree that this is a book that should never have been published. Still it is amusing that the novel will be voted out of Wikipedia, and exclusively by people who  have not and will likely never read it. It would be curious to see a list of all the books there is no room for in the encyclopedia.

Please let me know when the deletion occurs; we enjoyed your Banned by Wikipedia commentary.

S.C. Morsak, Editor

Vel North Editions Europe DasV (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We. Are.  Not.  Trying.  To.  Ban.  This.  Book.   Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching Amazon shows that the only book published by Vel North Editions and sold by Amazon is Fe Fi FOE Comes. Searching Google for "Vel North Editions" -"Fe Fi Foe" (see also this alternate spelling) shows that no one anywhere has a record of Vel North selling anything other than this one book.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary:
 * Comment

There is no copyright violation. Never was, the publisher has confirmed this. velnorth@googlemail.com they hold the first publication rights to the novel, and are the vendor for all of the sale sites.

The novel is ‘notable’ if for no other reason than it cannot be marketed, advertised, sold, or possessed in certain countries. Try taking a copy to Red China or North Korea … please. It will soon be notable for being banned from Wikipedia also. ‘BANNED’ 2: to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of Merriam Webster. Using the word ‘delete’ does not change the fact that the book will be struck from Wikipedia shelves. Since Wikipedia has an article on Banned Books you would think all of the books that Wikipedia editors have ‘deleted’ would be included on that page in all fairness.

The novel is not a ‘mass-market’ publication. In other words it is not a product of the almost complete monopoly enjoyed by the major publishers, which is supported by Wikipedia Policy. Because it is not a mass-market publication it does not have the publicity advantage enjoyed by the major publishers, which is supported by Wikipedia Policy. And it does not get the automatic reviews by major review sources enjoyed by the major publishers, which is supported by Wikipedia Policy. All of these things preserve and protect the publishing monopoly, as do the Wikipedia members. This also serves to limit the choices the reading public has de facto.

Amazingly this monopolistic support goes on proudly, and with a sneer for those who have the audacity not to simply accept rejection at all levels, and keep their manuscripts in the desk drawer. Poe should never have self published Tamerlane, Burroughs should have never published his series, and no one should ever break away from the publishing monopoly and find a small press that will dare to put out a controversial print. When The Shack has sold millions and millions, then Wikipedia might have an article on it, but there will be no article on this amazing little book to inform anyone before everyone is already reading it. Besides those voting for deletion have no time or interest in actually determining what it is they are deleting.

Besides this is the first English novel imprint for Vel North, such nerve to stain Wikipedia’s shelves with a single book in the portfolio! Of course Jim Baen and Tom Doherty broke away and started Baen Books and Tor respectively, both published David Drake’s early books; I guess at some point they had only published one book. I guess they would not have been entitled to articles at that point either.

This has been a wonderfully educational experience, and I thank you all for showing me the workings of Wikipedia. You are right, I must heartily agree with you. This is no place for Fe Fi FOE Comes.DasV (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The copyvio is from amazon, not the publisher. Verbal   chat  09:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon's description of items is usually provided by the publisher. Chances are the publisher wrote the text in question, which it seems was used with permission here.  Doesn't look like a copyvio to me.  Still non-notable, but no copyvio. JulesH (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jim Baen and Tom Doherty were both respected editors with a lot of books under their belts when they formed their respective publishers. Google has apparently never heard of 'S. C. Morsak', except in relation to this particular book.  The comparison is, frankly, laughable. JulesH (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Quite obviously true as anyone knows. The purpose of inserting the copyright block had nothing to do with any copyright violation. What do you find notable about The Lottery by Shirley Jackson? DasV (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has been discussed in, among other sources, a book on its author published my a mainstream press, American Literature, and Essays in Literature, and has been filmed not once but twice, the later production being described by an authoratitive source of one of the best films ever made in its genre. These things, among others, make it notable.  What can be said similarly about the book in question here? JulesH (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lottery was a short story published in a magazine 60 years ago. It rose to fame because of the negative response and was BANNED in North America. It was that reaction which made the story 'notable' and eventually led to its popularity. The book in question here likewise has content which is prohibited - banned - elsewhere. The exclusion you seek is not based on any merit, other than a lack of any second hand praise or criticism at some arbitrary level, but nevertheless the exclusion will be notable. That too will be worth saying about the book. DasV (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Your parochialism is handicapping your search efforts with Google. I count 10 hits on the first page when I'm not limited to English. The comparison serves to illustrate the absurdity of the policy. Books cannot not be told by their cover, by their ads, by their reviews, who publishes them, or even who chooses to ban them. DasV (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the owner of the copyright has to follow the instructions on the copyvio notice. I think it has something to do with OTRS? Verbal   chat  11:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. Okay.  Now I'm certain you're pulling our legs, because I search Google in all languages, with safe search turned off, and turn up NOTHING for "S. C. Morsak" other than Wiki pages discussing this article and a page on the Goodreads site that DasV linked to rather far above my comment here.  I even tried using both "S.C" and "S. C." to see if the spacing mattered at all.  Are you using some Google other than google.com?  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? Let me pull your leg some more then: Try a search on google.de for Morsak.

Germans are notoriously reticent to discuss personal or business information with strangers. However from perusing the websites it appears that the Morsak – Stecher family operated Morsak Verlag from 1884 until 2003 when it was sold. All of the titles in the catalog before that date were published by that family. Since then members of the family have organized another verlag (this means publishing) and have done something like 20 books, spinning off Vel North to do their first English novel due to ISBN issues and marketing in the US. Probably S.C. Morsak is a member of the immediate family. You are welcome to send them an email, I doubt they will provide any details, but will likely confirm their publishing of the pre 2003 titles and the current ones under the new company. velnorth@googlemail.com You will note that ‘googlemail’ is a European name for Google. The novel copyright page indicates it was printed in the European Union. DasV (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the url for a search: http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=morsak&meta= DasV (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean this search on Google.de for S.C Morsak which turns up nothing? We said that S.C. Morsak doesn't appear to exist in Google.  This shows that he doesn't exist in either the English or German Google searches.  Vel North similarly publishes only this one book.  You will note that we have said both of these things and your responses have been almost non sequiturs.  Are you listening at all when people talk to you?  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Enjoy your perspective. DasV (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Another excercise in futility. DasV (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment; have updated my views above as the copyvio claim is not so obvious and variously muddied. As for the article itself: if the book is as notorious as has been claimed then surely more press coverage is to be expected in the future, which could pave the way for a rewritten version of this article. As for the moment, though, it is a dead horse and not getting any less dead.  one brave  monkey  12:24, 12 January 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.