Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origins: Discovery (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Len Wicks. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Origins: Discovery
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book. TheLongTone (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or at best redirect to the author Len Wicks as there is quite some coverage but still applicably questionably notable. Notifying the only currently active AfDer . SwisterTwister   talk  03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is my rundown of the sourcing:


 * Armenpress. This reads an awful lot like a press release, enough to where I'm concerned that it's just a PR reprint. Armenpress does offer PR services, so this is very likely the case. I'd consider this to be an unusable source for establishing notability.
 * SBS. This should be usable. SBS is public broadcasting and they do acquire content from other places, but I think that this should likely be usable.
 * Mediamax. This is very brief, to the point where it's almost trivial coverage. What concerns me about this site is that it puts a huge emphasis on its marketing arm and their various media monitoring services. I'd say that this source is likely unusable for establishing notability, given that they do offer PR services.
 * RSA Review. This is listed as "Issuu.com", but it's actually the quarterly publication of the Returned and Services League of Australia. I'd say that as long as he's not part of the RSA, it should be usable. The association would need to be verified, though.
 * Lyunse. This is part of Public Radio of Armenia. Granted I'm looking at a Google Translate version of the page, but their about page claims that they've won quite a bit of recognition. This interview is likely usable.
 * Azatutyun. From what I can see with a GT run, this looks to be sort of similar to a public radio setup as well and they post written articles on their website. I'd need someone fluent in Armenian to really go through the page to verify things, but I'd tentatively say that this is probably usable.
 * Kamartert. From what I can see, the site has an editorial board but does accept user content. I'd say that this is likely unusable. The article itself appears to be a review, but it written a bit like a press release at times, which doesn't help matters much.
 * YSU. This looks to be a press release, so unusable.
 * Arka. This doesn't mention the book. To be honest, it doesn't really back up the assertion that it "explores the possibility of peace". While the article is about the Armenian Genocide, an article about something related doesn't guarantee or certify the content of the book. As such, using this source would be considered original research at best and shouldn't be in the article.
 * Mediamax. Same issue here, it'd be considered original research and the book isn't mentioned. The issues with Mediamax as a whole are an aside, since the more major issue here is OR.


 * So here's my summary so far: The article has sources, but only four are ones that could be usable. (SBS, RSA Review, Lyunse, Azatutyun) Several of those are from public broadcast outlets and are interviews, two things that tend to cause sources to get depreciated on here. However if we take that aside, this could be technically enough to assert notability per NBOOK, but it'd be a weak assertion of notability. If this is kept, it'll need some cleaning to take out the sheer amount of puffery in the article. On a side note,, if you were paid to create this article or otherwise asked, you will need to disclose your WP:COI. I'm going to clean up the WP:PUFFERY and leave the four usable-ish sources listed above, then try to find additional coverage, if it exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Len_Wicks. This is close to passing and could possibly be considered enough to technically pass NBOOK. However I noticed something when I was looking at Wicks's article - that article has its own issues with notability and puffery. To put it bluntly, we could have an article on either the author or the book, but likely not both. If we had to choose between the two, the best one would be the author's page since that could hold more information than the book page would. The way that the article is written, paired with its history, gives off the strong, strong impression that the article was written by people affiliated with Wicks. I'd like to openly state that editing with a COI is highly discouraged for just this situation: it's very likely to result in content that is written in such a positive manner that it's very promotional, as is the case here. If we were to leave the book's page then we'd have to worry about the notability for the author and given the sourcing in the main article, I'm very concerned that the author's page would end up redirecting to the book. I'll work on re-writing the article and merging the applicable content over. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear redirect the author is only marginally notable, shifting the book's sources to the articles about the author helps strengthen the coverage of both. Sadads (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2016 (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.