Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler's Escape


 * 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. --Fang Aili talk 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's Escape

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non notable book, published by vanity press (Athena Press), by author without other books, gets 17 distinct Google hits, mainly from the homepage and from online sellers like Amazon and BarnesandNoble (who both sell everything and are no indication of notability). Non notable, no WP:V independent sources about the book. Fram 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Confused comment: if it is listed on Amazon then it DOES meet WP:V. It is verifiable. It may not be referenced (but that's not a reason to delete). As to notability, I've no idea, so I'll abstain.--Docg 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an unusual interpretation of WP:V... Are there any WP:V sources about the book? Reviews? Interviews with the author about the book? Articles about the controversy it may have created? Scientific articles referring to it? Are there any WP:V sources indicating the notability of the book? It is verified as far as its existence goes, but that has never, as far as I have been aware, been the interpretation of WP:V used (otherwise, almost every conceivable article would fulfill the core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR). What arguments would you use for articles for which there is no specific accepted notability guideline? Note that Notability (books) is only a proposed guideline. What argument would you use to support the deletion of such a clearly non-notable book, if someone would argue that it fits WP:V (per Amazon), WP:OR and WP:NPOV, doesn't fall in any clear WP:NOT category, and there is no accepted guideline on its notability? Or would you argue that in that case, we have to keep it? No, this book does not meet WP:V in the normal sense of reliable independent sources about the book, which Amazon (and Barnes and Noble and so on) are not. Fram 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is really quite simple. And it has always been policy. Verifiability. Amazon IS a reliable source for the book's existence. (They don't sell non-existent books.) So the existence of the subject of the article is verifiABLE and indeed VerifiED. However, Amazon inclusion is not evidence of notability, so WP:N is not satisfied by that - although a very high Amazon ranking might be. Further, as the details in an Amazon listing may be supplied by the author - Amazon listings are not WP:RS for details. So there may well be reason to delete. But, the existence of the book is verified, so Verifiability is not a reason to delete. The debate is over notability and whether we can say anything reliable about it, not about verifiability. (OH, on that basis delete by the way) --Docg 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question I'm not contesting the existence of this book, but I'm pretty sure being listed on Amazon doesn't actually verify that a book exists. Wasn't there a hoax book that somebody made an Amazon listing for in an attempt to keep it on Wikipedia? I wish I could remember the title... GassyGuy 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to reply, even if you assume that Amazon included a hoax on one occasion, that doesn't alter its overall reliability as a source for verifying the existence of a book, its author, its publisher and other basic data. Major news organizations sometimes report misinformation or are fooled by hoaxes, but those imperfections don't make them any less reliable in the aggregate and so we continue to use those as references as well. Dugwiki 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * YEAH. I remember that too.  It was called "Trout".  Here's the discussion: Brent Henry Waddington. Wavy G 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't arguing that it is a hoax, I agree that Amazon is a WP:V source for its existence (and verifiable does not necessarily mean true, so hoaxes on Amazon are covered :-) ). It may be due to a poorer grasp of English on my part, but when I said in the nomination that there are no WP:V sources about the book, I intended (by using "about") sources giving any verifiable information beyond the basic existance (beyond the directory listing Amazon essentially is). Sources giving background information, showing the notability. So, yes, like most AfD discussions, it is about notability, but that has to be shown by using WP:V sources or the lack thereof, no? Anyway, this is more a semantic discussion, I think we basically all agree, but the use of the WP abbreviations differs a bit. Fram 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BK GabrielF 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability criteria, and blurs the line between fact and fiction. yandman  09:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep Could do with some cleanup and/or expansion if it stays. --John24601 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you keep it? What makes it notable? What sources would you use to expand it? Fram 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the book nor do I know anything about it, but I'm inclined to think that if this were a bigger, more established article, then we would be trying to save it. The fact that nobody has expanded it yet doesn't necessarily make it a candidate for deletion, however conversely it is of no use in its present form. If nobody comes forward to establish notability or attempt to expand the article in, say, 3 months, then at that point I think we could reasonably assume that it's not notable enough for anybody to be interested in. I realise this is a rather weak argument, which is why I'm so tentative, and the more I type the more I'm considering changing my opinion to delete....! --John24601 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom: mere existence may be verifiable (although Amazon are far from infallible) but that doesn't justify an article per WP:N, or allow one per WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 23 January 2007 (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.