Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Journey as a Combat Medic


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My Journey as a Combat Medic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable self published book. The review in Kirkus is not from Kirkus Reviews, but from "Kirkus Indie," their program for self published books, which consist of "reviews" paid for by the author. Based on what they say, they'll review anything, if they get their money. As their web page  says, "Simply request a review by clicking the link above. You'll give us as much information possible about your book, choose whether you want standard service (7-9 weeks) or express service (4-6 weeks) and pay for your review (standard service $425, express service $575). When you submit your order, you'll get a response from the Kirkus Indie team confirming receipt of your request." Kirkus has previously served as one of the leading review media for public library book selection. Obviously, no professional librarian would trust reviews written in the above manner, so it is not surprising that no library at all has ever purchased a copy of the book,   as can be seen from WorldCat

I do not know how a previously reputable selective review service got themselves into this disreputable trade, which is part of their "Kirkus Author Services", that offers "book editing, reviews and marketing services for unpublished and self-published authors from one of the most prestigious brands in publishing". Prestigious once, but I fear not likely to remain so. As far as I am concerned, this severely compromises the reputation of their long-standing  true review publication, Kirkus Reviews. I am not sure that I still accept it  as a RS for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I wish it could be otherwise, but when I was editing this I had a really hard time searching for sources. What I did find was fairly slim and I ended up having to pull some of the local news interviews from the author's website that were luckily on the actual news websites.Here a run down on what I added:
 * The book and author are very briefly mentioned here, with the focus then shifting entirely to encouraging shell shocked soldiers to seek emotional support and mental help.
 * This is sort of debatable. The project appears to be somewhat notable and this page does list him as a focus in the project. However the only thing that bothers me is that the book gets only a brief blurb and we don't see how the book was actually utilized. I'm willing to allow this as potential notability, though. But again- we don't know what impact, if any this really had on the project as a whole, which is why it's probably more of a trivial thing than a major thing.
 * , These are interviews done by local news stations, which sort of cover the author as much, if not more so than the book.
 * My biggest worry is that most of these all came from a very, very short period of time back when the book was initially released back in 2011. There hasn't been any coverage since then and the coverage was fairly light. While there are some sources, there's no depth of coverage here other than a very brief spate of coverage over a 1-2 month period from the author's local news stations, which is why I'm not really surprised that it's getting nominated. If someone can show that the book has gotten any further reviews or news coverage I'd be willing to change my vote, but I just don't see where this really and truthfully passes WP:NBOOK without a doubt. It's pretty close to passing, but it's just not there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By this I mean that there are no real reviews for the book (I'll have to watch out for the KI stuff from here on out) and the coverage so far is predominantly local human interest spots that don't really focus on the book as much as they do on the author and his experiences. If not for the fact that they're all from the same point in time, I'd give more weight to those. With the lack of reviews I don't think the book passes and without the book as the focus, I'm afraid that this would just be a "one event" sort of thing. Again, if someone can find other things that show a depth of coverage and more reviews, I'd be willing to change my vote.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage about the book, and a spate of local attention is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I reviewed and promoted the article, so I am going to stay neutral. I am a new reviewer, but this is the first I've had come up as a candidate for deletion. Everyone here makes valid points. By comparison, I had seen much weaker articles; it's not a substantial entry, but I did not find it to be trivial either. While there has not been significant national coverage, there have been several major network morning show interviews about the author, his experiences and the book. Search the book, watch the interviews and judge for yourselves... I will support either decision. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES  15:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:50, 21 August 2012 (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.