Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse


 * 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   merge to Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse.  MBisanz  talk 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The gist of this nomination is that while the books have sold well, neither Founders nor Survivors have received enough coverage in reliable and independent sources to show notability enough to pass WP:NBOOK. I'd previously redirected them to the main article, but those redirects were reverted. There was an argument that making the NYT Bestseller list extended notability enough for an article, but at most the NYT list is seen more as a trivial source and not really anything that would show notability enough for an entry. Of both articles, the only sources out there are for primary sources such as the author's blog and a link to the NYT bestseller listings. If anyone can find sources that are in reliable places, I'm open to suggestion but ultimately the coverage for these specific books (as opposed to coverage of the author as a whole) is not enough to show notability and hasn't been in sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:
 * Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: The author has been directing people to come to this AfD from his blog and there's a lot of new users, SPAs, and people logging in after years of not editing on Wikipedia. Please read over all of the arguments in this AfD carefully and I'd like to remind any new incomers that arguments for keeping MUST avoid anything listed in WP:AADD and that in order to salvage the article, you must provide reliable sources. Saying that it's WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE is not a valid argument and neither is WP:POPULARITY. Sales, no matter how plentiful, do not count towards notability. In-depth coverage in what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources is what ultimately matters.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional: I have no problem with merging and redirecting this information to either the author's article or the article for Patriots, although I'd recommend deleting the history of these two articles to avoid a reversion war.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing the rigors of WP:BK Qworty (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The author is notable, and so are his books. This book was on the NYT best-seller list this month. It was just recently released, which explains the paucity of published reviews.DiligenceDude (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This rationale fails WP:CRYSTAL; if it does attract sufficient coverage, can always be recreated... Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that notability is not inherited. Very, very few people are so notable that all of their creations gain notability by extension. I'd say that less than about 5% of all creators are so notable that they'd get to that level of notability per Wikipedia.(And that's anyone who made anything, whether it's an invention, a book, speech, artwork, you name it.) The biggest thing about people of that level of notability is that while the rules do state that their books and whatnot can gain notability by extension, it's generally accepted that anyone of that level of notability would have more than enough coverage for all of their creations to merit individual articles. Rawles isn't at that level of notability. Heck, I've seen Stephen King articles deleted for lack of coverage and he's pretty much a household name, meaning that he isn't at that level of notability just yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge to author article, or a new series article such as A Novel of the Coming Collapse series. There is no consensus that best-seller imparts notability. There was a proposal at one time, but never achieved consensus. Best-seller is not part of the equation at the moment. I did find one interesting article that puts it into context.
 * Murphy, Kim. "Survivalists head for the hills; Author James Wesley Rawles looks to the future and sees trouble. He's urging Americans to prepare". The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 03 Mar 2012: C.1.
 * It's in ProQuest commercial database (ID 926245668). It mentions the Survivors book above and would count as an OK source but not enough alone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I remember seeing that one somewhere, but it talks more about the series and author as a whole if I'm thinking about the right one. That's been one of the bigger problems I had when searching for sources- they were either primary or about the entire series as a whole, mentioning the individual books so briefly that it could be argued that when applied to notability for specific books, as opposed to an article focusing solely on the individual book, it would be mostly trivial. (Yeesh, sometimes I think that trying to keep up with all of the loopholes and intricacies of RS and GNG is just prepwork for law school.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now as far as the sources on Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse goes, here's the issues with most of them:
 * 1) This is a very brief mention and is more about the author than the actual book, so it'd be trivial at most.
 * 2) This is a primary sources, which can never show notability. Generally speaking, primary sources aren't supposed to be used unless it can be backed up with multiple independent and reliable sources, meaning that it should be unnecessary to use them.
 * 3) This is a merchant site, which never shows notability and can't be used as a reliable source. I'll also be honest when I say that Amazon sales ranks mean nothing when it comes to notability on Wikipedia.
 * 4) This is just a re-listing of various sales ranks on PW, which wouldn't show notability. It also doesn't seem to actually list the book in question either.
 * 5) Another merchant site, which isn't supposed to be used as a reliable or even trivial source. The type of trivial material it'd back up almost never needs to be backed up by a source and as far as for reviews, the customer reviews don't count towards notability and since it's fairly common for merchant sites to edit reviews from reliable sources, we can't use it to back up any other reviews even if they were on there.
 * 6) This is the same thing from the first bit and as such, has the same issues of not really showing notability for this particular book.
 * 7) This is an interview, but it's not done through what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Let me stress that this is by Wikipedia's standards, which is often a source of frustration for a lot of us that try to source articles for books that aren't as mainstream as Twilight or Harry Potter. It can be a source that's respected in the various groups of people that read or do some things, but that doesn't mean it's considered a RS via Wikipedia's standards.
 * 8), These go to various pages but not to actual blurbs for the book. Even if they did, they'd have to be people that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source and again- just because someone is associated with a station or writes doesn't automatically mean that they're a RS. Again, this is one of the more frustrating points of trying to source a non-mainstream article.
 * 9) This is just a guest page for Rawles. If you could link to the actual interview this could show notability, BUT I must stress that this would be the only source for the book so far and we'd need more than one source.
 * 10) Goodreads is never usable as a reliable source and the amount of reviews at any place, whether it's Amazon or Goodreads, mean nothing as far as notability goes. The amount of reviews in places like that don't count because quite frankly, they're easy to make and the people are almost never notable enough for their reviews to count via Wikipedia's standards. I'm not saying these specific reviews are fake, but you have other authors who have done this in various venues, such as Robert Stanek. He's infamous for creating hundreds of fake reviews. Customer reviews don't count is pretty much the whole story here.
 * 11) Same thing goes for here- this is just a list of average reviews by non-notable people and it doesn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now here's the sources for Survivors: : The book is mentioned, but only in passing. The main brunt of the article's focus is on the author and to show notability about the book, it'd have to focus on the book. This is also what the problem was for the Vancouver article: from what I could see from it, the focus of the article was on the author and not on the book. This was my biggest issue when looking for sources. As far as the other sources go, one is for the NYT bestseller list, which cannot show notability, and the others go to primary sources, which also can't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just updated the link to the George Noory interview with a link to the MP3 file of the interview itself. It is a 2 hour interview. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ with your first point. Having any book included in the New York Times Book Reviews Sunday magazine is NOT "trivial." It is considered prestigious, and often "makes or breaks" the success of newly-released books in the US and Canada. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Publisher's Weekly compiles their own lists that are independent of the New York Times lists. (Hence the different ranking #.) The reason that the book does not show at that link is because the site "hides" the top-ranked books in the archived editions of their pages, to get people to buy a subscription to their site.  I 'spose this reference should be replaced to a hardcopy reference, rather than a URL. I will do so. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the mention of the book is insanely brief in the NYT Book Reviews article. It's only a brief mention of the book, with the book not being the focus of the section of the article about the author. The thing about RS is that it has to actually be about the book to show notability for it. The book is mentioned as a one-off, with the author getting the focus. As far as lists of book sales go, it doesn't matter who compiles them, lists of book sales never contribute towards notability. If the NYT Bestseller lists don't count towards notability then anything Publishers Weekly compiles surely won't, just saying.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated: "....lists of book sales never contribute towards notability..." That is a matter of opinion, not a wiki rule.  When best seller lists were recently discussed for notability, there was no clear consensus. About half of the editors thought that best seller lists DO confer notability.DiligenceDude (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never seen an article kept based solely on the fact that a book got on the NYT bestseller list. I've also never seen anyone successfully argue that being on the list completely infers notability. It doesn't give notability at this point in time. That's just not how it currently works. If you want to argue to get that changed, please do so. It'd make my job a lot easier here. HOWEVER, this isn't the place to do it and no bestseller list will show notability. It doesn't matter how many editors think that bestseller lists show notability, unless there is a clear consensus that they do, they can't be used as a source for notability and will always remain a trivial source at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for complying with WP:BK, which requires only that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." There is no doubt that these books have been the subject of multiple reviews by various websites, radio commentators, etc. It's worth noting that WP:BK does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is inappropriate for those supporting the AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. Nevertheless, the New York Times Sunday Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WBZ, and WSPD have their own pages here on Wikipedia, so they must be notable. These sources, plus many other works in sources such as EMPAct radio and Night Owl Reviews, are surely sufficient to prove notability according to the community's agreed-upon standard as clearly defined in WP:BK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.212.53 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 50.135.212.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, there is a requirement for reliable sources. It's one of the most basic policies out there and can be read at WP:RSTokyogirl79 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the other thing about the links to the reviews supposedly done by the other places is that we didn't actually have a link to where these reviews, just to the basic website. We have no way of knowing how the review stated, whether the review was about this book or about the author's work in general, or really anything beyond a vague claim of them praising the book. It's one of the main reasons why none of the author blurbs on jackets for the mainstream books usually make it onto the articles for various books. There's more to it of course, but the main gist of it is that we have nothing to actually link to as far as the review goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is clear, so clear that the author is very notable and so are all of his books.  He is one of the world's experts on preparedness and all of his books are widely read, particularly by preppers. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines), since the prepper movement is mostly a web phenom. Signing, OnlySwissMiss (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One of his books, Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse is notable enough by Wikipedia standards to deserve a standalone article. If Survivors and Founders had sources like Patriots, I would vote keep.  -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep: The author is one of the most notable voices in the preparedness community and Founders has been one of the best selling novels in the survivalist/preparedness genre. Gerald Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.212.119 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 184.56.212.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Agreeing with above "Keeps", I reiterate that James Wesley Rawles is the most well-known author of survivalist-prepper non-fiction and fiction books and is indeed notable as are all of his books since they are both on New York Times Bestseller list and Amazon.com Top Ten.  All four of Rawles books have been published in audio format by Audible.com http://www.audible.com/search/ref=pd_auth_1?searchAuthor=James+Wesley%2C+Rawles and suggests notability of his books. This is not the case with many authors to have four books published with Audible. Keep since it does indeed comply with WP:BK, which insists that only "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Don't forget that WP:BK does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is not reasonable for those persons suggesting AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. The majority of reviews for Rawles 4 books are indeed web-based, since the Preparedness -Survivalist Movement is mostly a web phenomena. In addition to many web sites, that I could list if one wishes it. Notable non-web sources are New York Times Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WSPD, and WBZ - notable since each have their own Wikipedia pages. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines or radio-TV interviews), since the prepper movement is strongly a web/blog phenomena. Signing as an [| Wiki Inclusionist], Jefferson Franklin
 * I must stress again, that the author being notable does not transfer all of that notability to his works. Very very few authors are so overwhelmingly notable that all of their books gain that notability. Rawles is not that notable. Not by a long shot, no matter how much you feel like he is. Also, being published (aka "it exists") is not a sign of notability. Many books exist, but that doesn't give them notability either. Being on any merchant's top ten list also doesn't give notability either. That's not how notability works here and ultimately most of these arguments fall under the premise of WP:ILIKEIT and none of these arguments are actually the type of things that keep an article. I also must stress that WP:NBOOK has the same requirements for reliable sources as anything else on Wikipedia does. None of the sources on the article are considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules. Trust me, if WP:NBOOK wasn't held under the same strict restrictions as everything else on Wikipedia, I'd have a lot more book related articles that were kept on Wikipedia. You can't reinterpret these rules to keep something just because you like it! Existing through any publisher does not give notability. Being a top seller does not gain notability. Being reviewed by people on Amazon or Goodreads does not give notability. Being reviewed by reliable sources might, but only if you can actually give a link to the review that's not on a primary site. I notice that there's a lot of new users coming in here to put in "keep" statements, and I know that as such, most of you are unaware of how Wikipedia works. I highly recommend that you re-read WP:NBOOK and WP:RS to get more familiar with how notability and reliable sources actually work. Also be aware that this is not decided on a vote and that no matter how many people you send over here to vote, these things are decided on the strength of the arguments. So far no one has really given a good argument, just variations of "I like it so it's notable" mixed in with an incorrect reading of notability rules. Let me put it to you this way: if GreenCardamon, one of the most enthusiastic inclusionists on Wikipedia, has trouble justifying keeping this article, then the sources here really aren't enough to keep either article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Deleting the wiki pages for best-seller novels goes against the basic premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. A agree with Jimmy. We aren't editing Tinypedia here. There are no space limitations. Chipenge (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Give it a rest, TokyoGirl79.  The author has established notability, and given all the ink that's been spilled, so do his books. (See, for instance, the New York Journal of Books review of the Rawles book How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It: Tactics, Techniques and Technologies for Uncertain Times. (That, by the way, is a review of a Rawles book that foolishly had its Wiki page deleted a couple of years ago as "non-notable.") If you want to go warring against non-notables, then I suggest that you start with the page for Pokémon: Giratina and the Sky Warrior Sincerely, SemiFree (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — SemiFree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The notability of an author does not automatically extend to their books. In some special cases it does, but those are the most elite authors such as Mark Twain, 99% of the time it does not inherit. Nobody is saying this material is disallowed on Wikipedia, it's perfectly fine in the author article, it would be notable there. The question is if it deserves a standalone article, the bar is set higher. He has one book that passes, Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. If the other books had a similar level of sources they would pass too. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what GC said, and besides, the link you've shown us does not actually pertain to the specific books up for AfD. It covers Rawles and it mentions the survival book, but it doesn't cover these two books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep.Do you realize that publishers are translating his books into EIGHT languages "including French, Spanish, German, Russian, Portuguese, Bulgarian, and Korean" ? And you call his books NOT notable?  See, for example: Patriotas / Patriots (Spanish Edition) , and Überleben in der Krise.  German edition of a Rawles book., COMO SOBREVIVIR AL FIN DEL MUNDO TAL COMO LO CONOCEMOS. Tácticas, técnicas y recursos (Spanish Edition).  This is the the umpty-umpth AfD I've seen that smells like it is motivated either politically or based on envy.  All this whining about "just because it is a national bestseller don't make it notable" makes me want to wretch.  The degree of envy and "sour grapes" attitudes in WP is disgusting.- ThePrepper  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.97.2 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As JWR posted on his blog, "feel free to politely chime in." Wikipedia operates on the basis of Good Faith (please read). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This pages offers a summary of content that contains potentially useful information.  The book has sold many copies and has been listed on the NYT Best seller list.  By title the book is iseful to include as it will be mentioned in blog postings and other less mainstream articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamuskrat (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)  — Seamuskrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep. Making the NYT best sellers list, and also being translated into multiple languages, establishes that this is a significantly important work. No need to censor its appearance here.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Heckyeah Keep. I'm piling on, to agree. Survivors and Founders are both BIG in the survivalist world. Sometimes Wikipedia needs to come down off the Ivory Tower and recognize that there are people out there that have a different perspective on life and different interests than the eastern academic establishment. The world does not revolve around Boston! - Walt in Montana  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.84.198.70 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the book in question is an important part of a larger movement (Prepping) that is highly influenced by the author (Rawles). According to WP:NBOOK one of the standards for notability is: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." While not a political or religious movement per se, the Survival/Prepper movement is notable enough to have it's own page (Survivalism) and it is at some level a political movement. Overall I think deleting the article does more harm then good. As a secondary vote I say Merge if we decided not to keep it. --SCVPolitik (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would buy into Preppers being a political movement of sorts. Are there reliable independent sources that say these two books made a significant contribution to the Prepper movement? (thank you for the compromise Merge vote in order to retain the content). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. When I last checked, "Founders" is stacked front and center on the New Books table at Barnes & Nobel.  It is VERY popular, and Mr. Rawles is considered an influential "guru" in the whole prepper/survivalist movement.  His latest novel is a big part of that. And if you haven't noticed, its struck a chord in the national psyche. Check this out from todays headlines: Age of Obama: Post-Apocalyptic Shows Rule Television. Americans currently have mega-giga-disasters at forefront of popular culture. No wonder that Founders and his other books are so popular.  If that isnt "notable", I don't know what is. -- A New Editorialist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.143.12 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to all incoming new users: Please be aware that popularity does NOT count as an argument to keep an article. Popularity is not how things are decided on Wikipedia and that no matter how many of you come on here with arguments that essentially boil down to "I like it", that's not how articles are kept and that these things are not decided on a vote. Your arguments have to fall within the boundaries of WP:GNG and not within WP:AADD. Reliable sources are necessary to show that these books pass WP:NBOOK and most importantly, they have to be specifically about this book. Sources that are about the author do not count towards notability for this specific book. Saying that the books exist or that they sell well or are on the shelves of various bookstores also does not count towards notability. If that was the case, then there'd be many more articles for books on Wikipedia. Existing is not notability and notability is not inherited by the author being notable. Only rarely can an author be so notable that all of their works inherit notability and Rawles is not one of those authors. This isn't a slight, as less than 1% of any author that ever existed has this level of notability and less than 5% of any living or deceased persons that ever existed in any given field has this level of notability that extends to their works, whether literary, scientific, or otherwise. There are no sources to show notability for these books and that's pretty much the long and short of it. The big thing about a lot of the “sources” put on the article is that they aren’t the type that gives notability. Being on bestseller lists doesn’t give notability per Wikipedia’s rules, not even when it’s the New York Times’s bestseller list. Do I necessarily agree with this? No, not always, but that’s pretty much the way it is. We can’t keep an article because it’d hurt your feelings to have a book deleted by an author that you particularly like. I’ve had to vote “delete” on AfDs for various articles that contained things that I’ve liked and would have liked to have kept, but the articles didn’t pass notability guidelines. My original move for these books was to merge the pertinent data into the main article and redirect there, but my actions were reverted because the books “exist”. Again, existing is not notability. As far as showing that these books were particularly influential, you’d have to prove that in reliable sources. Just for the new people coming in, a reliable source must be independent of the author. Anything he personally publishes, whether via his blog, his books, his agents, his publisher, or anyone involved with him or the process of getting his books put into the general public, anything from those sources is considered to be WP:PRIMARY. You can’t use those to show notability or to really back anything up. You have to back up the claims from primary sources with multiple independent and reliable sources. Here’s where the difficulty comes in when it comes to things within a group that isn’t uber-mainstream: you have to put it in reliable sources. Most blogs aren’t usable, which means that you can’t just run out and post a blog claiming that this is notable. It won’t work and if it was that easy, I’d have created a million blog entries to save various articles from deletion. The only time a blog is usable is if it’s by someone like the editor of a paper such as the New York Times or if it’s by a very notable person, such as someone who is routinely quoted in newspapers or books. Most people don’t reach this level of notability and reliability. As far as when you do have people who reach that level, you have to actually link to something they published. We can’t go by quotes posted by Rawles on his website because we have no way of knowing how much of it might have been edited or revised to look good, or even pertains to the actual book at hand. We have to look for the actual source, which is why most author blurbs for various books are never used. It’s fairly common in the literary world to have blurbs for past books appear on current books, revised to appear as if they are for the new one. You can never take anything at face value. Review-wise, they only count if they’re posted by reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, New York Times, and the like. Reviews by “average” people such as you and myself don’t count, no matter how many of them there might be. Is it frustrating that you could have something with a decent fan following within its niche not pass notability guidelines? You betcha, but “it’s popular” stopped being a valid argument years ago when certain authors (which shall not be named) started creating fake reviews and posts about themselves in order to bolster arguments to keep their articles, which is why the guidelines for books are so strict now. To show notability you have to provide independent and reliable sources to show that these specific books are notable. Not show that the genre its posted in is notable. Not show that the author is notable. Not show that there are lots of people in the prepper movement. You have to specifically show that Founders and Survivors are notable by showing reliable sources that cover these specific books in depth. Passing mentions in relation to other things does not count. That’s the long and short of it. No amount of “keeps” will salvage the article if it lacks these reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Page Improvements: I am in the process of adding several third party review links to both the Survivors and Founders wiki pages, in their respective "Reception" sections. This should resolve one of the reasons cited in the initial AfD. Please do not remove references during an AfD discussion period. If any of these fail to meet WP:RS standards, then then can and should be removed, post facto. Please feel free to add more reviews, particularly from magazines and newspapers.DiligenceDude (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I also just added another reference to the synopsis section, with a reference to an Asheville newspaper. DiligenceDude (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue with this source is that like the others, it only briefly mentions the books in the article. It's good when it comes to showing notability for the author, but not for the book. Articles that would show notability for the book need to be about the book and discuss it in depth. Not the author. Not the prepper movement, but about the book in question. A brief mention does not show notability for the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree that there are sufficient sources to support the notability of the book, the author and the author's other works. When all else fails, defer to consensus. Dishandspoon2008 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Things aren't decided on a consensus here on Wikipedia, but on the weight of the arguments. So far the arguments made have mostly been along the lines of "I like it so it should be kept" and "obviously notable", neither of which are arguments that have any weight on Wikipedia. As far as the new reviews go, here's a rundown of them and why they don't show notability:
 * This one might work, but it doesn't seem to actually be by a staff member or one of the named contributors on the site. The New American seems to be the type of site where anyone can contribute a review or opinion, which is where this review is placed.
 * This is a review on a non-notable blog site. Blogs almost never show notability except in rare cases and this is not one of those cases.
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is not a site that is considered to be both independent and reliable. Yes it's frustrating to hear that none of the sources work and trust me, it's just as frustrating for me as well to have to continually shoot them down, but this is not a reliable source either per Wikipedia.
 * An interview with a non-notable radio show, also doesn't show notability. Just because an interview was done and it's not directly involved or ran by Rawles doesn't automatically mean that it shows notability. Less than .01% of any media, reviews, or interviews done concerning books actually pass WP:RS as far as showing notability for books go, and that's even with the more mainstream authors.
 * Another non-notable blog review.
 * Another unusable source and another site that isn't what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Believe me when I say that blogs are almost never usable as sources for the reasons I stated above.
 * I'm not trying to harsh on anyone's vibe, it's just that this isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and pretty much all of the sources given so far are the type that Wikipedia doesn't count towards showing notability. We need arguments that are more than the weak arguments that never actually have any weight towards keeping an article. I really, really recommend that a lot of the newer users and the ones returning after being away from Wikipedia read over WP:RS, WP:NOTAVOTE, and WP:NBOOK in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify Item #1: 'The New American magazine is a hard copy magazine, not just a web site. It is published by the John Birch Society. IIRC, their hard copy circulation was around 50,000, but their web site readership is larger. Like many other news magazines, the publisher posts a selection of articles from the hard copy magazine to their spun-off web site. The article in question was written by James Heiser, a salaried employee of the magazine, who holds the position of Staff Writer.  He has written many dozens of articles and column pieces for the magazine, dating back 2009. If you look at a hard copy of the magazine, you should still see his name in the masthead, assuming that he hasn't left the staff.  So that is a hard copy third party published source. BTW, so is  World (magazine), cited at the end of the list of references. DiligenceDude (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And to clarify the clarification, ANYTHING by the John Birch Society publishing is NOT a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Doom Pen, Why do you say, "ANYTHING by the John Birch Society publishing is NOT a reliable source", when the New American has been around for more 53 years (1958) and has a circulation of 50,000+ readers in print and even more online (not a blog)? The Birch Society's New American has been published longer than magazines like the liberal Mother_Jones_(magazine) (since 1976, 203,000 readers) and Utne Reader (since 1984, no circulation listed) which are accepted by Wikipedia as notable for reviews and citations. Jefferson Franklin (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It says right there in the reliable sources definition under Questionable sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." The JBS is nothing if not "widely acknowledged as extremist" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * An Observation: I mean no offense and this is not directed at any particular editor, but rather addresses the culture of WP as a whole, and its sourcing rules. I have observed that the majority of book review periodicals in the United States have a strong tendency toward writing reviews of books that appeal to the eastern establishment, with a decidedly liberal political outlook.  Hence, a publication like The Kirkus Reviews  was quick to review a novel set in the Old South:  My Jim, by Nancy Rawles. But they'd scarcely ever consider reviewing a conservative, Christian survivalist novel by James Wesley, Rawles, even though he has had multiple bestsellers, and his publishers have more than 300,000 of his books in print. As a background metric, a typical American novel only has 5,000 to 8,000 copies sold. (And, by the way, I don't think that Nancy Rawles and Jim Rawles are related, I only mentioned Nancy Rawles, because they coincidentally have the same surname.)  Reviewing conservative books simply isn't part of their culture, because these books are of NO INTEREST personally to the editors.  So... to expect to be able to find multiple hard copy book reviews of survivalist books like Patriots, Survivors, and Founders is not realistic.  By extension, for Wikipedia to insist on third party hard copy book reviews to justify the existence of WP page about a novel injects a bias of its own as an unintended consequence. Here, in essence, is my point: WP doesn't MEAN to be biased, but its own rules unintentionally CREATE an automated organizational bias against books with conservative themes and in favor of books with liberal themes. (It is the book review publications--like Library Journal, Kirkus, New York Times Book Reviews, etc.--that are at fault at the core level here, not Wikipedia.) As an aside, I've noticed that the same problem exists for WP pages about blogs.  Under Wikipedia's antiquated rules, HARD COPY magazine and newspaper articles about web-only blogs are required as "reliable sources."  This prevents most articles about blogs ever surviving on WP, even those some of these blogs have weekly readerships that number in the hundreds of thousands--far larger than many newspapers and magazines  We, as WP editors, need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Are we fulfilling Jimmy Wales's original intent here? Have we gotten so caught up in rules and edit wars that we are no longer creating "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."???  DiligenceDude (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * " This prevents most articles about blogs ever surviving on WP" Yep. and that is a Good Thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with TRPoD on this. It's insanely frustrating at times, but the reason behind this was that you had a lot of unscrupulous people that would, upon hearing that they needed more sources, go out and create various blog entries and claim that it was a sign of notability. You had a lot of this in the earlier days of Wikipedia, which is why the rule for blogs is so insanely strict now. A lot of bad behavior by people in the last 5 years or so is why a lot of rules are the way they are now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The essential function of Wikipedia is to provide reasonably accurate and reliable information based upon open source validated user input. The problem here is that American survivalism and preparedness are themselves highly controversial topics which have been, at least until the recent economic depression, a fringe interest to much of the Western population, and the subset of those who comprise the vast majority of the Wikipedia contributors, and thus have been largely ignored by the mainstream media.  Within that context, it is foolish to insist upon 'MSM' acceptance or recognition as a criterion for legitimacy.  One must then look to sources within the community to establish notability or lack thereof.


 * Exclusion of sources within the preparedness community based upon their lack of mainstream recognition or academic credentials is a virtual guarantee of exclusion of the entire preparedness culture from Wikipedia. If these standards had been applied to any number of other 'fringe' activities there would be a great many holes in the Wiki. For example, there would be nothing shown in Wikipedia for BDSM, for example, an activity which until recently was largely held to be illegal in many states in America, in Great Britain and the EU, and could not be well documented due to fears of legal repercussions. Illegality notwithstanding, BDSM was and remains a noteworthy cultural phenomenon worth documenting, which Wikipedia did by using sources, largely anonymous, within the BDSM 'scene'.


 * Within the preparedness community, Rawles' work is considered highly influential, as the previously submitted sources document. If the selection of work were to be based upon literary merit or mainstream acceptance, Rawles' work would not qualify, but those are not the standards Wikipedia applies, QED.  As a representation of the American preparedness movement, "Patriots," "Survivors," and "Founders" are unquestionably notable works, and if Wikipedia wishes to maintain it's claim to objective impartiality, the articles on them should be kept as such.  TechnologyHistorian (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * re your basic premise of: "The essential function of Wikipedia is to provide reasonably accurate and reliable information based upon open source validated user input. " It does not appear that your interpretation is actually based upon the foundational pillars nor the policies and guidelines of WP:N and [WP:V]] and WP:OR and WP:RS. You may wish to revise your position to be based on such if you wish it to have any weight. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to state that BDSM has actually been covered in various formats over the years as well, even when it was something only spoken about in hushed tones. The Prepper movement is notable enough for it to have its own article, having received coverage. However if you want to prove that it's notable within the movement, you have to prove it by providing reliable sources that specifically mention this book in-depth as opposed to sources that only briefly mention it and/or only mention the author. A movement being notable or an author being notable does not extend that notability to all things written or produced within that genre/movement or by that author. If these two books were as notable as you claim, there would be coverage of them enough to where it would show notability. But there isn't enough out there and not everything is notable just because it has ties to something else that is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

 * Keep. Please keep as notable. Founders, Survivors and Patriots are all books that regardless of perceived popularity, sales, etc, are books that heavily influence an entire group of individuals worldwide to change their thinking about their economic and personal safety. They create a paradigm shift.  An author's ability to create a paradigm shift in so many people through his work is extremely notable.  Most books do not accomplish that, including the ones forced on our youth in the public and private educational systems. To accomplish having readers go from thinking that "everything is fine and bad things aren't going to happen" to "I need to get started with some quick changes in my priorities" is an accomplishment and notable.  His books change lives and the thought provoking ideas in his book most likely will save the lives of those who internalize those ideas. What he has written about has already happened in other countries.  Mrs. RLB107.39.198.122 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to support these claims? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ignore all rules. The books have sold well, which means that we should cover them, or we would be noticeably incomplete. We will have large numbers of users looking for information about these books. The fact that reliable sources don't say much about them merely means that we can't say much about them, but we should say what we can. --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * merge/redirect to Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse if reliable sources have little to say about it so that we have little to say about it, we can cover everything we have to say about it in another related article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of Order While I hold my own opinions on this policy, I actually think that TokyoGirl should be routing folks to Wikipedia:Verifiability, it speaks more to why the article deserves to stay or not -- OhioShawn  15:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriant74 (talk • contribs)
 * I am not sure where you came by that opinion. WP:N and its WP:GNG speaks to the first hurdles that need to be met for a standalone article. WP:V speaks mostly about the content within an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge with Author article Counter to the arguments of being on bestseller lists, the author has been known to stage "book bombs" in which he encourages all his supporters to buy on launch, thus artificially placing himself on the bestseller lists. This is yet another reason that bestseller lists should not be used for notability.  The pages are also sorely lacking in respectable, verifiable sources.  Because of these facts, the articles should not be given their own pages, and should be combined or deleted into a page on the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc7717 (talk • contribs)
 * JC7717, what exactly does "respectable" mean when one Wikipedia editor above, considers John Birch Society New American magazine to be "not reliable"? "Book bombs" are done by the major book publishers but they call it advertising and "marketing bomb" or "book launch" PR. When done by an lesser know author, you call it a "book bomb". Jefferson Franklin (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While rankings can indeed be pushed in the short term, one thing can't be manipulated: aggregate sales. The true tests of a book's popularity are its total print runs and number of copies sold. His first novel (Patriots), for example, has been a long term cash cow for Ulysses Press and will soon have 150,000 copies in print. (See: http://www.survivalblog.com/2012/10/notes-from-jwr-535.html) For comparison, a typical novel usually has 5,000 to 8,000 copies sold before it goes out of print.)  DiligenceDude (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * one shouldnt have to point out that it does serve Ulysses Press and the author to claim high sales and so they are not entirely a reliable source for such claims. But one might need to point out to all the new editors on this page that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—...  Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. ... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

James Wesley Rawles has written a trilogy of which Founders is the third volume to appear. Rather than being sequential in nature, instead they tell parallel stories of life after the crunch. They are highly educational because they contain tons of information that would be useful to anyone seeking to survive after a societal collapse. These books have all been best sellers. I am astounded that anyone would consider deleting any articles about these important books. Some one must have a political agenda that they are trying to fulfill. These articles need to stay. Sugarcube73 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * delete but make sure book is mentioned in author's or previous book's page. Interesting book, interesting subject matter. Picked commenting on this AfD because I saw the title, and was curious about the premise of the book and wanted to learn more.  Unfortunately, there aren't any reliable sources available.  The best I could find is already cited (nytimes link), but it's coverage is pretty trivial.  A book review in a reliable source would make this work notable, but unfortunately no such article exists that I can find. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ignore all rules. Mr. Rawles's novels are VERY notable and widely-read in the Survivalist community, which is a segment of publishing that's downright ignored by the Book Reviewing World. They have no clue. No freaking wonder you can't find many published book reviews. But that doesn't make it NON-notable!!!, by Kayla Simmonds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.143.7 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * please read the full content of WP:IAR beyond the "ignore all rules" part - you know, the part "if it improves the encyclopedia". Please provide information about how it improves the encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I can take the liberty of answering for Ms. Simmonds, as it seems her point has much in common with mine. Her argument is that the novels are widely read, therefore having articles on them improves the encyclopedia, because they serve the numerous readers who would want to read about them, before or after reading them. If the point were merely "widely read among a small group", then that would still be debatable, but the novels' sheer sales figures mean that the group of interested readers is rather large. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you also suggesting that we ignore WP:V and WP:RS? because since those policies also apply to all content, everything we could possibly cover under those policies in stand alone articles about the books under consideration can clearly easily be covered either in the author article and/or the article about the original work. We would have to start ignoring a lot of policies for no real reason that could not be applied to a zillion other articles, at which point there is no reason to have the policies at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument to keep an article and besides, there's no agenda here except for following Wikipedia's rules for notability. The only one who seems to have a political agenda is the person who is voicing that any deletion of any material has to be political in nature and not because it just simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. If I really was doing this for political reasons, I'd have nominated the author and all of the other books, but I didn't because they meet notability guidelines. These two books do not. If anyone could provide actual sources that show notability, I have no problem with the article being kept. If anyone wants to userfy and work on the article in their userspace until reliable sources can be found, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with people trying to keep an article because they like it and trying to bully me into withdrawing a nomination by insinuating that I'm part of some big political conspiracy to remove these books from Wikipedia or trying to gang up on the nomination. Which, I might add, is not actually helping any of these arguments out or really providing a good rationale per deletion discussions. There's no notability here and no amount of "But I like it" can change that without actual reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many people the author or other fans try to send over here. That's not how notability works.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There have in fact been multiple AFD attacks on EVERY Rawles book article, and the biography of Rawles himself. In each case, these began with Speedy deletes, with no preliminary discussion on in the article's respective Talk pages. So why the rush? Why did editors treat a subject that they aren't familiar with so dismissively? When these speedy deletes were restored, they were immediately followed by AFD campaigns which eventually failed, when notability became clear. This experience is not unique. Deletionist editors are quick to hide behind WP:NOSHAME But if they spent half as much time trying to IMPROVE articles as they do Wikilawyering and writing lengthy discourses on "why we must stick to firm rules", then Wikipedia would be a much more comprehensive and vibrant source of information. Obscurity does not mean lack of notability. Book reviewers in hard copy journals have ignored Rawles, his books, and for that matter the entire prepper movement. But that doesn't mean that they aren't valid subjects for Wikipedia. And if you think that AFDs of this type ate a rarity, just ask Terry Shannon I'm an Inclusionist, and proud of it.DiligenceDude (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that people might not use AfDs as weapons, but that's not the scenario in this case. As far as speedies go, it'd be nice if every editor would try to explain their rationale in either the edit summary or the talk page, but it's not a requirement. As far as what other editors do or don't do is ultimately what another person does or doesn't do. Just because there are some users that identify themselves as deletionists doesn't mean that every user is a deletionist and that users (such as myself) identify as such or don't try to improve the article before resorting to redirects and deletions. I did try to find sources and there were none out there that Wikipedia considers to be usable to show notability. Ultimately what you need to show notability are reliable sources, which unfortunately for Rawles and the prepper movement, those sources that are considered reliable have generally overlooked the individual works. This is fairly common for literature in general. For every book that gets extensive coverage, there are at least 100 books that don't. And I don't mean books that are self-published by John Smith via CreateSpace. I'm talking about books by authors that are known within their genres, have been published by big name publishing houses, and sell well enough to where they make a living solely off of these book sales. Yet they don't get that coverage for their individual works (or even sometimes, themselves) to pass notability guidelines because they're in a niche genre or because they aren't flashy enough to catch mainstream attention. I would say that I have about a thousand books that I'd love to write articles for, yet cannot because they aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The reasons the rules are so strict now is because there have been years and years of people abusing the rules in order to get their books or names on Wikipedia and exploited loopholes to accomplish this. What this means for everyone else is that most books will ultimately go back to the author's page, if there's enough for an author page at all, or to a big article for the series as a whole. Frustrating, yes. Necessary? Yes. If you can think of a good way to re-phrase notability guidelines for books to where it'd fix these loopholes, please do so. But we cannot rearrange the rules simply because you like these books and feel that it's unfair that something you like is up for deletion, then turn around and continue to apply those rules to other books. We can't do that because that action in itself is unfair to show preference and bend rules for things we like then not show that same luxury to other articles. By the by, if you want to userfy these articles (if they get deleted) until they pass notability guidelines, feel free to do so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

−
 * Delete. I have reviewed the sources listed above and done a search, but do not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There is significant coverage, but it is invariably in sources that are not reliable. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it is not significant. A lot of the coverage is independent of the subject, but all of it is either unreliable or trivial. The good-faith keep !votes uniformly fail to cite sources that could contradict the above conclusions. This is not a WP:IAR situation, because the limited verifiable material can live quite happily in the author's article. Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Without references in Reliable Sources that cover this book significantly, I do not see how this passes WP:BKCRIT orWP:GNG. Some above have suggested that those voting "delete" are requrring hard copy sources and that this raises a bias problem. I am not suggesting the sources need to be hard copy, as WP:BKCRIT does not. They do need to be Reliable Sources though. Those are not to be found. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into a "Novels of Survival in the Coming Collapse Series" article. - Hey Wikipedians! You know how people are always complaining about left-wing bias on here? That's a simplification, but there is cultural bias at work. Don't get me wrong, I'm an east coast geek, and I love Internet culture, but let's get serious. Someone already mentioned articles on individual Pokemon. There is all sorts of inane stuff on Wikipedia. These books are, like, _the_ leading realistic survival series. If an article's validity is based largely on Internet citations, WIKIPEDIA WILL REMAIN A NERD GHETTO because nerds write frequently on nerd topics on the Internet. You need to consider that there are significant works of cuture that get less Internet attention because of their audience. Compare this with the lengthy article on the (relatively) obscure TV show Firefly - an awesome show, but more notable than a best-selling book? Maybe, but clearly nerd-bias plays a role here. Hell, the author is notable for just having a comma in his name. Please keep or merge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.63.199 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * note that "other crappy articles exist" is not a very convincing argument and one that the closing admin is not likely to take into account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what RPOD said. You have to provide sources to show that it's as notable as you say it is. The thing about the articles you've mentioned is that they've either received massive amounts of coverage in various reliable sources or they're just articles that haven't been put up for deletion yet. The thing about the merge into a main article bit is that there is no official name for the series. Each book relates to one another but there's no formal title. Even if there was, mentions of the two sequels would be best served in the main article for Patriots and was my initial action. There's enough out there to show that the first book is notable enough for an article, but not the sequels and considering that creating a series article would essentially just use the sources from the first book, it's just better to add mention of these books in the Patriots article and redirect there. Creating a series page would be redundant.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The source information mostly is news articles mentioning the book. The first was a mention in Daily Oklahoman October 4, 2011. Then there was a menton of the book being #34 on USA TODAY's Weekly Best Selling Books list for the week of October 12, 2011. Seattle Times February 10, 2012 is more about Rawles than his book. Then there's a brief mention in Le Monde Diplomatique August 1, 2012 (it just lists the book by name. Then the book was #10 on Publishers Weekly fiction bestsellers for October 14, 2012. That's really all there is. It's not enough for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2012 (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.