Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dies at the End


 * 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 without prejudice against re-creation if more nontrival, independent reliable sources appear later. — TKD::Talk 08:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

John Dies at the End
This appears to be an ad for an as-yet unpublished first novel by the guy who runs the website "Pointless Waste of Time". It is described as "tentatively scheduled to be released in late Summer 2007." The author earlier distributed it through CafePress, which is basically an on-demand print shop and distribution outfit. A related AfD, from 2005, is here:
 * Votes for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time

I suggest that material like this is somewhat below the radar of encyclopedia coverage. We don't even have a firm publication date, there appear to be no professional reviews, and the fellow doesn't have any track record as an author, so verifiability is a bit of a problem. The article even describes the plot as rather fluid. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The book certainly seems to have attracted a cult following during its self-published days, and now it has been picked up by a real publisher (which doesn't often happen to previously published books) it may get more exposure.  Review here from a semi-reliable source. JulesH 10:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. No reliable sources as yet, though it is quite well known in the blogosphere. See what happens after the book is released, it may gain some RS in the form of print reviews, etc. But since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can't keep it for now. --Darksun 11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On JuleH's comment, I agree that it "seems to have" attracted a cult following, if you take the words in the article at face value. However those words do not appear to be verifiable, at least in their current state.  Moreover the "semi-reliable" review you present has no provenance.  Elyas Baktiari, whoever he is, has no Wikipedia entry, and is not mentioned in any Wikipedia article.  Nor is his blog, Ablogistan.  --Tony Sidaway 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was basing that on the results of a google search for the book, not the article itself. JulesH 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the provenance of the review, the site of the author of the article might not be a notable site, but the site that published it, BlogCritics, is. The author is a journalist, who writes regularly for the San Antonio Current, and is editor of Health Leaders Magazine. JulesH 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Darksun.  Douglasmtaylor   T / C  12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Darksun Stephenb (Talk) 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not supported by any reliable sources. NawlinWiki 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I've heard of this so many times that I'm genuinely surprised there don't seem to be any news articles about it, but since I can't find any either, I have to say delete. Propaniac 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm from Wong's site, and I don't see what good it would do for the book to have a wikipedia page. Coyoteknight 13:52 31 July 2007
 * Keep - Just a few comments on why the article should stay, and addressing the original conerns that brought this article to AfD: One, the book is definitely being published, and not just in some unknown future; its release is imminent according to the author and publisher. Two, the article is not an advert any more than any other Wikipedia article on published works. It is intended to be informative and to give information on the work itself, not to sell books. Three, there have been reviews, at least one by a fairly reliable source as shown above by JulesH. Four, of course the author doesn't have a published track record, because this is his first novel. However, the articles on his website receive hundreds of thousands (sometimes over a million) views, and the online version of the novel has been read by almost 50,000 people. I'd say that's fairly notable. Five, though there are differences between the online version and published version, the two are largely the same in terms of plot, and the changes that have been made are mostly for editing and legal reasons (this is explained in the article). I certainly wouldn't describe the plot as "rather fluid". And finally, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, any reservations about the article should have been brought up and discussed in he articles discussion section before immediately bringing it to AfD. So far, this has not happened. The article should stay, at least for now. - Big Dookie 12:10, 31 July 2007
 * Just because a book is published doesn't make it notable. Also see WP:BIGNUMBER for your argument on pageviews. As far as I can see, there is only one review in a reliable source, whereas notability guidelines say there must be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a pretty borderline case, but in my opinion it doesn't quite reach notability guidelines (though it may in the future). --Darksun 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This book is too cool and awesome for a gay website like wikipedia. - Sean Gray 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no sources for notability. None. The above assertions about readership are unsupported by any evidence, let alone independent RSs. And I am not quite sure how recognized the publisher is. If there are reviews in accepted sources for showing the notability of books, which I see no reason to assume, then an appropriate article can be written. Then the content can be discussed on the article talk page.DGG (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was holding back on commenting at first, but Big Dookie convinced me that deletion is the best route for this article. Burntsauce 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While your contributions are appreciated, it appears you must have made a mistake, as Big Dookie's arguments are in favor of keeping the article. As AfD is decided through consensus and not polling, simply "voting" for delete to spite an editor adds nothing.  I'm sure either your "Delete" or reference to Big Dookie was simply a typo on your part and will be rectified as soon as possible.Countmippipopolous 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because something has a commercial sideline does not mean it should be included in the wiki for other reasons. This article went massively viral and is something of a Net phenomenon. -GW
 * It doesn't meet the guidelines for internet phenomenon though. The fact that it is now being published is largely irrelevant. The lack of independant reliable sources is the reason the article is nominated for deletion. --Darksun 20:01, 3 August 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.