Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It


 * 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 James_Wesley_Rawles. Despite the protestations, the article still has no indepedent third-party sources apart from blogs and interviews with the author. Whilst there is clearly no consensus to delete, our policies suggest that a merge to the author would be best until the book itself can support a policy-compliant article. Black Kite 12:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This book has received no significant coverage in secondary sourcing, and the primary editor of the article is identified as "an old friend" of the author of the book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No.191 in Books, overall (out of 4 million+ titles.) And as follows in these categories: No. 1 in	 Books > Computers & Internet > Business & Culture > Future of Computing No. 4 in	 Books > Outdoors & Nature > Survival Skills No. 14 in	 Books > Reference
 * STRONG KEEP - If the author is notable, then his books are notable.   This one (his latest book) peaked at #7 in  Amazon.com's overall rankings. Currently, six months after its publication, it is still ranked as follows on Amazon:

The author's blog mentioned that there is a review published in The Futurist magazine: "...the March-April 2010 Books in Brief section of The Futurist magazine, under the headline: Alarmingly Practical Advice For Doomsday. You can look for it on pages 60 and 61 of the March-April issue."

It certainly meets inclusion policy. Trasel (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment It must be noted that Trasel is described as "my old friend" by the author of this book, so consider WP:COI here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Amazon ranking (which is arbitrary and dynamic) has nothing to do with notability, and one solitary review isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The author is notable and has been cited in mainstream publications (e.g. Popular Mechanics). The book has been the subject of multiple reviews, though most are blogs. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep what is it with Rawles and the WP:IDontKnowIt crowd? The book peaked at #4 on Amazon, was in the top 10 for several WEEKS (which is not that "arbitrary"), has 70K copies in print, and is in multiple reprints.  It's been mentioned in major press on TV and in print.  Of course it's notable.  Is there a WP:ShiftingTheGoalPosts critique?  "Just because it's outsold Ann Coulter doesn't make it notable."  The last time, it was argued that just because Rawles had been interviewed several hundred times by AP, NYT, CNN, CNN Europe, several dozen major city newspapers, managed a magazine and had 50K weekly hits, he wasn't "notable."  Can we get a consistent standard and apply it? (ETA and before anyone "points it out," yes, I know Jim Rawles slightly, and have submitted content to his works, for which I was compensated materially.  You'll also find I'm considered "notable" in some circles.)Mzmadmike (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Addenda: I forgot to mention, that in addition to US print edition, there is a British print edition--(With a slightly different cover with "The International Bestseller" across the top) --three audio book editions (multi-CD, Mp3, and online), and the book is available on Kindle. So this in not some little crackpot missive that was cranked out by a vanity press, It is published by Penguin! I've seen it at both Barnes and Nobel and Borders brick and mortar book stores, the BX at Ramstein AFB, and also at Sam's Club, of all places. Its a mainstream book, and still selling very well. A book doesn't stay in Amazon's top 200 for six months if it is non-notable schlock. Trasel (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * comment, I must call attention to the AfD canvassing by Trasel here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was neutrally requesting comments on an open AFD. You will note that in every instance, I asked that "..comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated."  I DID NOT ask anyone to vote against deletion!  Trasel (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Trasel canvassed just the editors he knew were sympathetic to his Survivalist movement and they responded here voting 'keep'. One is an associate of the book author and the other has the name 'Surv1v4l1st', a fellow survivalist. Also note that Trasel also canvasses Survivalist blogs for AfD votes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep author is notable, this is his most notable work (a major trade publisher). content may be debated: is it too extensive considering its notability, is it well written, well sourced? but the book easily qualifies for an article. unfortunately, reliable sources are not being provided, per nominator. And i wouldnt want to disappoint anyone here who expects liberals to be fascist/communist bullies. hey, i tried to give this article a chance, so others might find references, not engage in mean spirited partisan ad hominem attacks. thanks a lot for assuming im an idiot. you dont even know who i am, but i am capable of thinking about WP articles on subjects im not personally interested in. just because i gave this an initial "keep" doesnt mean im one of "you" (or even one of "them" if i change my vote).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It - The writer is very notable, and his books are too. I am totaly amazed that a best-seller book would be AFD-ed.  The liberal, anti-gun bias at WP just plain reeks!  Some of the leftist editors have agendas that are sooooo transparent.


 * No comment on the AfD (I would think that a best seller would have more media coverage, but apparently not) ... however the canvasing at other venues is a matter of concern. people have been banned from the project for doing things like that ... it should be brought to the attention of an admin. Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum... The more I look into this, the more I lean towards a merger with the article on the author. I noticed that most of the statements that go towards establishing the notability of this book (sales figures, claims of being on a best seller list, etc.) were cited to the author's blog.  This is improper sourcing.  WP:NOTE calls for notability to be established in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  I have removed these citations as being unreliable for the this sort of information... And I note tht we seem to have this problem at all the articles relating to this author and his works.  An improper over-reliance on the Author's own blog. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I stopped contacting people outside of Wikipedia when I was told that it was against policy. But FWIW, its my personal opinion when the SUBJECT of a wiki article who is a living person has an article about them slated for deletion, or an wiki article about a book, movie, or play that someone created becomes slated for deletion, I think they should be told.  And for that matter, whenever, a NEW article is created about a living person or their work, I think that we should tell them about it.  This should be considered a matter of public trust in the Internet age.   Trasel (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have ceased this behavior, then there is no need to push it further. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

comment, looking above I see several editors who argue that because the author is notable, then it follows that all his books are notable too. When I look, I see essentially no book reviews about the book which is the topic of this article. They only book review cited in the article is by Weyrich Consulting, which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. We are looking for significant coverage in secondary sourcing. What I see above is several keep votes by friends and fans of the author, and no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sourcing. And, I notice that the sourcing of claims of 'best seller' come from the author's blog, perhaps there might be some independent sourcing of this claim? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment, I can't say that I'm a friend of the author, because I don't know him personally. I also can't really say a fan either, as I haven't read any of his books and am only somewhat familiar with his blog, so would say I'm neutral at the moment.  So, I personally disagree with the characterization above.
 * Also, the 'Reception' section cites some coverage in secondary sources. A mainstream periodical and two syndicated radio programs are listed at the present.
 * The Weyrich Consulting site does look more than a little suspect and appears to be self-published, so agree with you on that point. Also agree that some kind of independent sourcing for the 'best seller' claim is badly needed.
 * All and all, I would just like to see deletion process slowed down enough to let the article be fleshed out. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * comment: The phrase "The International Bestseller" is printed right at the top of front cover of the later edition published by Penguin - England. (Search on the book title at www.amazon.co.uk/ ) That edition was released after the success of the US edition. The FAZ newspaper in Germany  called Rawles's novel "Patriots" am American Bestseller (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub48A3E114E72543C4938ADBB2DCEE2108/Doc~E340491DBEDE94C4E9DF01F07365C1827~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html), but I haven't seen  any similar second party sources on his non-fiction book.  I'll do some digging, as time permits. Trasel (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment: Just thought I'd provide the URL to the UK copy that Trasel referenced.  Surv1v4l1st (Talk 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge It makes a lot of sense to merge and combine this book article into the existing article about the author. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Why do you think that merging the articles "makes a lot of sense"? Surv1v4l1st (Talk 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that this author has published this book is well sourced in secondary sourcing, therefore the book description pertains to be included, (merged into) the author's article. The fact that this book has not received "significant coverage in reliable sourcing" (the standard needed for a stand alone article) has not been disputed here.  Therefore this article does not meet the WP:Notability threshold for inclusion as a stand alone article, but it does meet the threshold for inclusion as a sub-section of the author's article.  The material doesn't need to be deleted, it just needs to be moved.  This article page would then be replaced with a redirect to the sub-section of the author's article.  Problem solved.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. The "significant coverage" issue remains an open discussion.  In fact, look up a few lines and you will see that very topic addressed (e.g. print and radio reviews, best seller status, etc.).  I, for one, would really like to see some more sources, but there appears to be enough for a start.  Any way, I am staying with the 'keep' for now as it appears to be a notable book and has been the subject in secondary sources.  Merging, while better than a wholesale delete would, imho, just serve to clutter up the author's article.  That's all I have to say on the topic and it will of course have to be left to consensus. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of fact, irregardless of double-talk, there has actually not been shown significant coverage in secondary sourcing. Notice that Surv1v4l1st does not point to specific examples of such coverage.  None appears to exist.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Irregardless" eh? ;) As mentioned above, the article, as it is now, references a review in The Futurist magazine as well as radio interviews.  There is at least one reference to the text being a "International Bestseller".  As to accusations of double-talk, I would invite you to review the policy on civility.  Goodness knows this AfD appears to be positively littered with violations of such from both sides of the conversation. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging in specifics instead of generality, I apologize for mistaking your generality for double talk. The Futurist so called review, is actually only a brief mention in their "books in brief" feature.  This is not a significant book review.  The two interviews you mentioned are part of the author's book tour, and book tours are quite mundane occurring for essentially every published book.  Book tour interviews also fail to meet the standard here for notability which is instead "significant coverage in secondary sourcing".  The "International Bestseller" reference to which you refer to comes from the cover of the book, which is not a secondary source.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Definately notable. I can't believe that this was ever nominated in the first place,  I see where the nominator has changed his vote to Merge.  Mebbe he should have suggestsed  that right off the bat, rather than wasting everyone's time.  WTF???  And now, people, I see where he frustrated a editor so badly that he went into retirement, with all his sheenanigans!   204.9.111.118 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Piling on my dittoes, here. This is a very noteable book by an extreamly noteable writer. James "Comma" Rawles is not as good a writer as Mel Tappan, but he's' way, way up there on the list.  The book has a lot of great survival tips, and it is sold all over the place.  They even got it at Sams Club.  BobbieCharlton (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (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.