Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Objects


 * 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 no consensus, good, policy-based arguments from both sides--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Rare Objects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:N Ladsgroupoverleg 22:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete What's needed, and might be possible, is an article on the author. Then her books can be listed there or if notable enough have their own articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This article only says that the book exists and quotes some people who like it.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looks like the author is either notable or really close to it, and agreed that we don't have an article on her.  Still not sure what the right thing to do it here, posting another 'find sources' tool to peruse what I can find... Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looks like the author is either notable or really close to it, and agreed that we don't have an article on her.  Still not sure what the right thing to do it here, posting another 'find sources' tool to peruse what I can find... Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as it appears that substantially all of this essentially brand-new article had been Copyvio from the get go, with no prejudice for re-creating initially as an entry in a list of works for Ms. Tessaro, who appears to be a notable novelist, from whence it can be later spun out if it develops sufficient independent notability. Also, no prejudice to someone else trying to rescue this in the AfD process, but I didn't find enough sources on this novel to make that appear feasible. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources or indication of notability, very little prose except review section, which smells of advertising, and possible COI. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or redirect to Kathleen Tessaro . Technically there's enough coverage for this book to have an article, since it has two reviews and an article, however at this point in time it seems a little soon. One note about trade journals: there's a misconception that they review every book that they receive - they don't and I feel safe in saying that they likely review less than 10% of any given mainstream publisher's work (and even less for the non-mainstream publishers). However right now this is a little slim and I'd feel better waiting for at least one more review before making this into its own article. This released a few months ago so it's possible that the book may gain more coverage in the future, so at most this should redirect to the author's article. I'm leaning more towards a redirect, but I have no true issue with a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I found more reviews, including one from the Daily Mail. I hate using that as a source, but at this point they're still considered a RS on here. I wouldn't use anything other than a book review, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to turn this into a weak keep at this point - there's enough here to justify inclusion, albeit weakly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable book by notable author. 382 WoeldXar copies in libraires same year of publication. Decent reviews. As for reviews, It's true I and other librarians no longer trust Kirkus; but even i=the friefe wreviews in LJ and ALA booklst are selective. Maajor newspaper reviews count even more, if hey aztre not from the homs city of the author.
 * Comment I object to the WP:Cherrypick of quotes in the section on "Reception". The presumably glowing quote from Publisher's Weekly follows a sentence that says: "An intriguing correspondence between May and the shop’s mysterious absentee co-owner brings further entertainment and character insight, though it doesn’t fit seamlessly into the rest of the plot." So the sentence quoted cannot be said to represent the review. Calling any review "favorable" is, IMO, drawing a conclusion that is not factual. We should avoid inserting these kinds of conclusions into articles. I also note that reviews from these publications that specialize in reviews are short (~250-300 words), mostly descriptive of the plot, and rarely do any analysis. They exist for people to decide whether to buy the book, and are not part of literary criticism by any stretch. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I included the specific quote because while the PW review was mixed, it was still more positive than negative. The problem with reviews (but especially trade reviews) is trying to rephrase the review without getting something wrong and picking a quote that doesn't require you making that particular review 4-5 lines long. If you want to re-write the reception section and pick different quotes that will fit better, go right ahead - I have no problem with that. Now as far as the trade reviews go, there is no consensus that they aren't usable. I'm aware of the most commonly cited problems with trades: they're short, they're always positive, and don't give a lot of in-depth criticism. However at the same time the arguments for use have been that while they're short, they can still give enough content to be a review of the work, they do have editorial oversight, and the outlets are selective in what they review. They're also not always positive - multiple trades have no problem with criticizing a work.
 * I get what you're trying to say and I've even opened up a thread about this at NBOOK myself. So far there has been no consensus that trades are unusable as far as notability giving RS goes. The main issue has been that not all trades are equal and getting rid of all trades would mean getting rid of some places that are pretty well thought of, like the Horn Book Guide and the ALA's Booklist. In the thread I opened I tried arguing that maybe only select trades could be used (Booklist, HBG, School Library Journal, LJ, for example), however even that got shot down. The reason I'm saying this isn't to be difficult, just to show that this has been an ongoing discussion that's unlikely to be easily resolved any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I do see your point about this and offhand I don't think that all trade review outlets should be usable (Kirkus is terrible, however the Horn Book Guide and the ALA's Booklist are quite good), but there has been no consensus so far that they can't be used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it's really only the Daily Mail that made it into a weak keep for me. I still have no true issue with this redirecting to the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they can't be used. I think they are limited in their weight in terms of notability. Using them is preferable to linking to Amazon or another site that is mainly a sales site. But that wasn't my main point. My main point was that it is not factual to say "The Daily Mail rated Rare Objects favorably" - that is an interpretation of the review. Someone else could read the same review and say: "The Daily Mail was lukewarm about the book." For movies, we allow folks to say "Rotten Tomatoes gave it 5 stars" but we discourage people from saying "Rotten tomatoes liked it." One is factual, one is not. There isn't a rating system for books, I know, but making ones own characterization of the review is not appropriate. If other third-party source says "The Daily Mail rated it highly" (and that someone was writing in a reliable source) then that's a citable fact. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... gotcha. That's a pretty good point - I'll be careful of that in the future, with the phrasing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think a review in all three of Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist (in addition to Kirkus Reviews) qualifies as notable. Also, the April edition of Library Journal has a more substantial review of it than the referenced Feb edition. maclean (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, as more than two non-trivial independent reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, have added a not so flattering quote from Kirkus Reviews to bring balance to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet wp:NBOOK because there are only short reviews in industry and library sources, nothing analytical or substantial. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, i can not see where your deletion reasoning is related to WP:NBOOK. Could you please show by underlining/bolding the relevant bits here - "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]" Here are the footnotes as well - "1.The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. 2."Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. 3.Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book. 4.A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criteria. 5.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You really don't need to quote the whole thing - a link will do ;-). I do not consider PW, Kirkus and LJ to be "substantial" or "non-trivial". A review of 200 words that is primarily a plot description is, in my mind, a product announcement, not a literary review. The purpose of all of those is to function as decision aids for purchases, not to set the book in its place in the literary canon or in scientific or historical thinking. A real review would be a review in the NYTimes, New York Review of Books, or in another publication that provides actual analysis and possibly criticism. None of the three mentioned here intended to do that. LaMona (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the [Kirkus] services page, where it describes itself as "an authoritative voice in book discovery" and "our website audience is dominated by consumers actively searching for books to buy,". So that puts it very close to Amazon's "recommender" service in terms of its goals, but an honest recommender service because it can't be finagled the way that Amazon reviews can. Basically, it's a buyer's recommendation service, with books (or galleys) submitted by publishers who can also purchase advertisements in the journal. Oddly, Kirkus requires publishers to provide 2 hard copies AFTER the review is done. (I honestly don't get this.) Library Journal states that "Books are selected for their potential interest to a broad spectrum of libraries." So that is their focus. Like Kirkus, they do not seek out books to review, but choose from books that publishers submit to them. It is a buyer's guide for libraries. Publisher's weekly is a service for publishers, providing publicity for books. Notable is that PW asks publishers to provide, along with 2 copies of their books, "An accompanying letter should contain a description or synopsis of the book, and any pertinent publicity information, including the author's previous titles, blurbs, or previous reviews. Book club, paperback, audio or movie rights sales, author tours of 5 cities or more, a print run of more than 10,000 or an ad/promo budget of more than $30,000 should be noted." I would assume that this information helps PW decide which books to review. Basically, being in LJ or Kirkus or PW means that your publishers succeeded in getting this publicity for your book as part of the promotion package that comes with your contract. All of these publications are useful, but they are also part and parcel of the marketing chain for books, in the same way that many computer magazines do "reviews" of new software that basically say what it does, but don't put it through any major tests. That's my take on these review services. I think they have a use, but they do not indicate notability of a book beyond that fact that it was actively marketed. LaMona (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as not entirely confident but there's enough with the listed sources. SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, thanks for your response, sorry about including all of nbook but sometimes a wall of text looks better then just a tiny link:), i like your reasoning about whats trivial, but this is open to interpretation ie. "Garfield is a cat" is trivial(?) but "Garfield is a fat orange comic cat" is not(?), some things are short but sweet, just look at Haiku:), regarding kirkus, lj and pw (and other trade publications) not indicating notability, previous afds have shown that some editors may be uncomfortable with articles that only have these reviews but they are usually deemed enough to meet nbook. ps. i added some of the kirkus review which is actually negative, surely not helping their business(or is it just a clever marketing ploy:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree with LaMona. I think that some trade reviews are well, garbage. For instance, I rarely use Kirkus anymore because I've had more than one person (most notably ) argue that they're fairly unreliable for reasons much like them asking for hard copies after the review rather than before. However at the same time some trades and trade-type outlets are pretty solid. Booklist is one that I liked even before I joined the ALA and the Library Journal tends to be relatively discerning about what they review. They're primarily aimed at libraries, however at the same time their reviews are read by multiple outlets and libraries' selections (and by extension the LJ's reviews) tend to reflect the mainstream readership as much as a review would from the New York Times - although this is just based on the argument about the trades' primary audience. Now whether or not their reviews can be in-depth enough is a valid point. I can see this as an argument and honestly, I'm uncomfortable with keeping an article based solely on trade-type reviews, however there have been arguments that you can still get the basic gist of the review on just a few sentences. I'd personally support a new discussion at NBOOK on the subject of trades as sources, although I'd argue for the use of some trades and the exclusion of others as sources. However this is a discussion for NBOOK and not really for an AfD, TBH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed to delete: the apparent promotionalism is a sufficient reason, even with some notability.  Notable book by notable auhor. 492 worldcat copies with a few months of publication is a good informal indication. As dioe reviews, major reviews in accepted national level newspapers or literary magazines remain the best source. LJ and Booklist are OK but although they are failly selective, the reviews are too short to be meaningful. Kirkus used to be ver convenient though not b very critical,   but prints at least some of its book reviews for money, which makes them useless  Most of these are mainly aimed at libraries, and they tend to go in parallel with the number of library copies, because libraries buy on the basis of these reviews. Newspaper and Maxine reviews are aied at the general public. Depending on the type of book, one may indicate more than the other.  DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I was personally unaware of the problems with kirkus, but despite that, I don't think we can discount it entirely. Combined with the other two sources, I think this just meets NBOOK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a question for, and  relating to Kirkus Reviews. I've been trying to find sources that show that they review for money. The only information I've found so far shows that "Kirkus Indie" specifically reviews books for money. Does Kirkus Review proper review for pay? Can someone provide a source? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say so on the web site, so I'm guessing the answer is "no." The journal has subscribers, takes advertising, and provides other services (editorial ,etc.) which are most likely the bread-and-butter of the magazine. It does say that they review about 7,000 published books and 3,000 self-published books a year (which they call "indie"). They also say that reviews average 300 words. here. What I didn't know before is that when you pay for an "indie" review(~$400-$600) you have the option of not having it published. In other words, if you don't like the review, it is never seen. They don't say how many (what percentage) are/are not ever put on their web site, but to be sure I would never trust an "indie" review. How it works. Note that Kirkus runs a marketing service that appears to be aimed at "indie" authors, (it's a "pay-fer") so there is a financial incentive to creating a positive-enough review that the author will want to buy the service. I also have never seen a Kirkus review of a publisher's book that out-right pans the book -- after all, publishers are their fodder - they supply the books as part of their marketing. If Kirkus gave out (and published) reviews that basically say: "this book is a stinker", that publisher would most likely think twice about having Kirkus review their books in the future. And if major publishers defect, then Kirkus loses its position as the go-to place for reviews.
 * I would love to see statistics from these reviewing services: how many proofs/books received, how many reviewed, which publishers, etc. LaMona (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * changing to Delete. as promotional. The paragraph of review quotations is what one puts on a book jacket, not in an encyclopedia ; The remainder is the plot,and that's not enough. The promotional aspect is shown more clearly by the initial insertion as a copyvio.
 * As for notability, the criteria for books are so very loose. I have in the past argued either the acceptability of reviews like this for notability when I thought the book suitable for encyclopedic coverage, or just the reverse. The actual situation is that the world of sources is not neatly divided into usable for notability or not usable: many sources, including these,  are of borderline significance for notability, and in my opinion show the uselessness of the GNG. In any borderline situation it can equally well be argued in either direction. It does not serve for making decisions, but the way we really use it is to justify our intuitive decisions. What we need is more exact criteria.  DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, hi, you now have a "keep" and a "delete" for this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I adjusted them. As I've said, for any borderline case, a good argument can be constructed in either direction.  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The book passes Notability (books), which notes: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The article lists reviews from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, its now been 12 days since the last relist, could an admin please either close or relist this afd, thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 18:17, 25 July 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.