Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus (novel)


 * 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. Noticeably, most of the keep "votes" are from IPs or single-purpose accounts. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nexus (novel)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

We deleted this in 2006 - see this AfD on crystal ball grounds. It has now been published but I don't see much evidence of notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability on following grounds: 1. The book relates with other books in the mind-body-spirit genre in both style and content, including "The Celestine Prophecy," "The Peaceful Warrior" series and books by Carlos Castaneda. [These other books have an article on Wikipedia. So the article on Nexus (novel) would link nicely with them.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.158.128 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 2. The book has a strong and steady following among spiritual readers particularly in the UK (please check Richard & Judy Book discussion) and in Canada. 3. The book deals with a number of hot topics that are popular, including depression, spirituality and meditation. What do you consider as evidence of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al192 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 
 * Reliable, published sources independant of the author(s) or publisher that can be used to verify/prove the contents of the article and demonstrate that the book passes the notability inclusion guidelines for books. You should look at the policies and guidelines for WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability (books). -- saberwyn 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I made a concerted effort to find something notable online about this book. There's nothing in google news.  I can find no reliable sources in a Google search.  Their publisher, Manor House, has a website linked from the book article, but it doesn't seem to have been updated since last year.  I can't find anything online about this company, I don't know if they're a reputable publisher or a self-publisher.  If somebody can verify that this is a reputable publisher, please let me know.  The book itself is over 300,000 on the amazon sellers' list.  If somebody can provide reliable sources, I will come back here and change my mind.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It looks as though Corvus and I were running the same searches at the same time. I found no reliable independent sources at all—just blogs, message boards, and outfits selling the book. The one review cited in the article is from "an online forum for volunteer reviewers," which doesn't sound any more reliable than an Amazon review. Fails WP:Notability (books). Deor (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This book is not a bestseller at this stage, therefore you will not find it reviewed in major places such as newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. For those unfamiliar with spiritual book marketplace, most of these publications rarely make it to conventional media outlets, since they are generally not discussed unless they built a large following after which they receive some limited press coverage. "The Secret," "The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari," "The Celestine Prophecy" and other have rarely receive much media attention until after they became hugely successful. "The Secret" actually first spread due to virial online marketing. The book's sales number in Amazon UK at present are 44,297 and 51,972 in Amazon Canada. The book seems to have steady and growing sales since I have tracked it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.45.155 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Manorhouse Publishing (MHP) is small to medium, independent publisher in Ancaster, Ontario (Canada). It has published and distributed books Worldwide through its distribution channels. While relatively small, this is NOT a self-publishing or vanity press. It's a creditable Canadian publisher with some promising titles, "Nexus" is its highest selling title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)  — WhoDaddy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete based on current content. Being in the same genre as some prominent books is not enough to establish notability. After all, the genre presumably includes books ranging from the extremely notable to the non-notable. However, even if this novel is not being considered for review in general interest newspapers and magazines, there are professionally published magazines that take a particular interest in this sort of spirituality. If this novel has been reviewed by such magazines, that would help toward establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has been reviewed by Belief.net (the largest faith site on the net), by Alive magazine (the largest free health magazine in Canada), The Hamilton Spectator (a daily newspaper), The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest dailies) and a few other notable print sources, which I will need to recheck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Struck out double !vote by SPA. Deor (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, it may need some work here and there, but it is full length article with book image and other things that give notability. Also, per above reason. -- American  Eagle  04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What "other things" give notability?  Corvus cornix  talk  18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sigh. Whilst I think it's a trashy novel, I can't see a policy reason to delete it. I did remove a bit of text that I thought was WP:POV, but apart from that, it seems legit. --  Chzz  ►  18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Legit how? The keep !voters are not explaining where they find any reliable sources.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An utterly non-notable book--there are only 5 copies in US/Canadian libraries, which for what is supposed to be a popular sort of book is as unpopular and insignificant as possible. But I knew it would come out to that without searching, because the first paragraph talks about how it is similar to 3 other actually notable books, thus giving a specious appearance of blue links and having something to say, the so-called "review" of the book is in something called "Reader's Bookwatch" in "Midwest Book Review", a PR publication of the small press community. The external links" are to books that are listed as references in this book, making it clear that not only is there nothing at all to be said, but not even anything real to link to. And defended here as "not a bestseller at this stage, therefore you will not find it reviewed in major places". A possible speedy as G11, promotional, except it will be good to have a easy way to remove re-creations as G4. Undoubtedly worse books have become best-sellers & notable, but it does not follow that  all bad books are notable.     DGG (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to its website, the publisher's last scheduled event was on 11/19/06. From what I've heard here, read in the article, and found myself, the only claims to notability are tangential: a sometimes-notable book genre and thin associations with Dan Millman and James Redfield. Until this book can generate enough notability to provide reliable 3rd-party coverage, I'd say it doesn't belong in WP. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability should not entirely rest on popularity of a work because what is popular at a given time is not always what is notable. Those looking to delete this book are looking only at popularity not on how this title adds to overall debate and understanding on Wiki. I don't think Wiki enteries should only promote what is considered popular or elevated according to critics, rather the focus needs to be on enteries that add to the discussion on Wiki. I believe this article qualifies as adding to understanding on Wiki and therefore it needs to be kept. Wiki must not become a closed place where only popular enteries are permitted or ones that satisfy critics. While this book isn't popular at this point, it seems to have a following among spiritual readers in the UK and Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritualBookLover (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * — SpiritualBookLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where have I even once mentioned popularity, other than to note the book's sales figures from amazon? My concerns are with its notability, and until such a time as reliable sources are provided, there is no notability proven.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability and reliable sources are lacking. Most all of the keeps are apparent SPAs. Dimitrii (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2008 (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.