Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamsterlopedia


 * 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. The (lack of) notability argument is well-reasoned due to the lack of independent coverage and review, and remains unrefuted in the debate. Regarding the dissenting keep vote, note that a determination of a book being non-notable is a separate matter from whether the book is good or reliable as a source. Sjakkalle (Check!)  21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hamsterlopedia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG, given nature of sources cited &mdash; The Anome (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As creator - if there is one consumer-level hamster care book to be indexed in Wikipedia then this one should be it. Practically none of these books get reviews, and such as they are, this one has several over a period of years. Some of the reviews, while self-published, are from people who have recognition as authorities on hamster care and who are not fringe. Another rationale for keeping this article is that I cited this book as a source for the article hamster show. The authors of this book are breeders and have written the most and best commentary on grading hamsters for show and pedigree. Wikipedia sometimes gives special concession to allow Wikipedia articles about WP:reliable sources which may fall short of WP:notability criteria, and I think for underserved topics like this one, it is for the best.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  17:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think we need to start creating exceptions for every "special" book. We have notability standards to keep this place manageable. No reviews are no reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The citations are not conventional but dismissing this as no reviews is too much.
 * The Hamster Mag - weird magazine but it is a published magazine about hamsters by a commercial publisher. This meets WP:N even though any expert would also say it is the worst of these sources, because it is by and for typical people with pet hamsters rather than serious hamster people.
 * ErinsAnimals - This is a top YouTuber with 321,000 subscribers. That should pass WP:SELFPUBLISH criteria as an expert in a relevant field. They review this book for 7 minutes, 10 years after the book is published. This is a thorough expert review.
 * Grantabrugge Hamstery - Well known breeder registered with the Hamster Council https://hamsters-uk.org/ giving book reviews of what breeders should know
 * Dashing Hamsters - This is an amateur blog and would be rated worst of the sources by Wikipedia standards. Still, the author is serious about hamsters, the blog is a thorough effort at correct documentation, and the book review presents a good survey of popular hamster books.
 * I know other stuff exists WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and what passes elsewhere is not supposed to be used to justify breaking rules elsewhere, but I do not think it is fair that Wikipedia accepts Kirkus but not self-published experts. Kirkus is the WP:RS for thousands of Wikipedia book reviews and their model is that any publisher that pays $1000 gets a book review. If I were rich I would give them $1000 and then this hamster book would meet WP:N. Kirkus would not get a hamster expert to write the review, but just churn through a paid reviewer. There are 4 reviews here from people who know their hamsters. I admit that all this fails conventional WP:RS but hamsters are underfunded and I think WP:IAR should be used for hamsters.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  23:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hamster Mag and the Hamster Council seem semi-RS. I'm still wary about the self-published blogs and other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Book was supposedly published in 2002 but is no longer even listed on the publisher's page (Ringpress Books). It is listed in zero libraries in worldcat, and although the publisher is in the UK and UK has a deposit requirement for books, it isn't in either the British Library catalog nor the official British National Bibliography. I can't even prove that it ever existed except for the one mention on the authors' web site and a review in a rather niche magazine which appears to no longer exist. (Issuu site gives no content, and magazine's site gives an error. Lamona (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The book exists. I just added links to worldcat and British Library listings in Wikidata because you mentioned them. The YouTube video review shows a physical copy of the book in the reviewer's hands.   Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha! Under this spelling ("Hamsterlopaedia") it does show up in the British National Library, and in WorldCat in all of 82 libraries. That still does not rise to notability, however. Lamona (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG; additionally, the article lacks acceptable sourcing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as clearly failing WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A YouTuber is not a subject-matter-expert because of subscriber count, which is an example of WP:POPULARITY. Grantabrugge Hamstery is also clearly a blog with no editorial policies whatsoever, merely a register with Hamster Council, which is standard for breeders, does not denote that it is a WP:RS or SME SPS. The same is of Dashing Hamster- it is a blog with no indication of reliability, just because the author is serious and enthusiastic does not make the site an expert SPS. Reading through Hamster Magazine, the submissions page seem to be quite lenient, allowing volunteers to write without detailing any submission or fact-checking process, I also could not locate editorial policies or the authors being subject matter experts, its website link is defunct, and there is no WP:USEBYOTHERS, it is just a self-published magazine. Therefore, none of the sources meet the reliability requirement, and this clearly fails GNG/NBOOK. Besides, at WP:RSP we don't actually consider Kirkus Indie, which allows paid reviews, are RS (in fact it states Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published), so this is a bad WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)