Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Apart from a dubious list of people "influenced" by Blavatsky which may only be Cranston's opinion, there is little point in creating a separate article. Ash (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the basis of this nomination is NOT a question of notability but that the article is a content fork.—Ash (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 * Reply I am confused by what you are suggesting; are you claiming that the book is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky because it is a biography? If the biography itself is notable, then it deserves its own article. So, I am confused as to how this is not a question of notability. Mrathel (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The basis of the nomination is that the stub article on this book is a content fork of the Blavatsky article. The guidance for content forks makes no special mention or exception for books. If this book has independent notability and was particularly influential there may be an argument for having its own article. At the moment the article has trivial content and I do not see any potential additional content available that will not just duplicate material about Blavatsky already available on that main page. To give an example, there are endless biographical books about Hitler (and each may have many hits in Google Scholar) but each book does not require an article unless the book's notability was not just that it piggy-backed on Hitler's notability.—Ash (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This book is not independantly notable of Blavatsky, and does not need its own page. A mention on the Blavatsky page is sufficient. Angryapathy (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment unlike the other books considered for deletion on or by hpb today, this is from a reputable trade publisher, and i remember it getting some significant attention when it was published. the article as it stands is, of course, horrible, but i would seriously recommend it just get fixed up and left to stand. of course it has no notability outside hpb, as its a biography of hpb. i dont understand that argument. the question would be is it a notable book about hpb, and i say it is. i will try to find reviews if i can.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From your comment you may not be aware of the relevant guidance supporting the nomination, please checkout WP:CFORK. The book may meet the notability requirements as laid out in WP:BK, but this is not the basis of the nomination in this case.—Ash (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the referral to cfork. i hadnt read that as of yet. Im not sure that this applies here, though i would see how an endless series of articles on books by and about her would apply. i still think this book may deserve a stand alone article (i tend to support more stand alone articles on books in general, as long as they are "real" ie trade publications (i was a bookseller once)), but i do recognize that it more likely only deserves significant mention in the hpb article, and should not be spun out as its own article if refs are not found, as i see someone below has attempted. if i can find something to show notability, great, but if i dont i do support merge.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * comment As far as notability goes, this article does not meet the standards as presented, containing no information sourced to reliable sources. I have looked on google books toe see if there are any mentions of this book in relation to the subject, finding this, this,this, this ad, which is not a reliable source, but leads me to believe that there may be others,this,this, and this. I will not go so far as to say that these little references in other books are enough to claim notability, but there are a few that provide information than can be added to the article that can be verified. The text is clearly a well-known reference on the subject, but I am still neutral. Mrathel (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * i would say this shows adequate notability. the amazon.com page references the initial publishers 50k advertising budget, which is fairly significant, publishers do this for their major frontlist titles. on the minus side, the book was picked up in paper by a small press associated with the movement, so it didnt have "legs" to justify a trade paperback reprint.I just linked references to this book in WP. not a lot, but some had not been linked yet. it does seem to be an important source book for articles on this subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just regarding the Google Books issue, I would point out that this is a fairly recent book (as books go), so it's not very likely to have yet created a significant number of hits in "books". Is there a way to check the number of hits in newspapers or magazines?Wjhonson (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)  Google Scholar at this link shows 28 additional hits.Wjhonson (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The book was originally published 16 years ago, you may have been mislead by the ISBN relating to the most recent edition. Try looking for: . As for the appearances in Google Scholar, these seem to be articles about Blavatsky rather than the book.—Ash (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of notability of the book. And no real content in the article. NBeale (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Helena Blavatsky as it fails WP:BK. Click23 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason to favor deletion over a redirect? - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete book is not notable by itself. Racepacket (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

*Keep Since everyone wants to delete this, I say keep. Why did they change it to "Articles for deletion"? It used to be called "Votes for deletion". Tilliegone (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a content fork per nom, as a soapbox, and as a non-notable book and lacking real content per NBeale. It is also what some Wikipedians call "fancruft".  Alternately, merge into Helena Blavatsky as suggested by MacGyverMagic. 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tilliegone. Mohangumatay (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tilliegone. ImprovEverywhere (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tilliegone. Shaycarl (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird topic, weird contributors. The above four are each other's sock puppets, and have admitted so in an SPI they filed themselves. See Sockpuppet investigations/Tilliegone. Those "votes" can be discredited. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a mention in a New York Times article, and it's referred to in scholary papers, however I don't see enough to qualify as significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT article, if I remember correctly, is a letter to the editor (I'm too lazy to search again). I found a lot of hits for "HPB: The Extraordinary Life" in Google Books (give it a try)--the book is heavily listed in bibliographies, but I couldn't figure out if it was heavily cited. I'm staying on the fence; I did not find good reason to say that this meets WP:N for books, but I wish that I had written a book that popped up in so many bibliographies. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails to meet our standards for a separate article on a book. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:18, 3 December 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.