Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Last Nazi


 * 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 Iain King, amply supported by consensus below. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Secrets of the Last Nazi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this by random as a recently accepted AfC candidate. While the initial state of the article gave off the impression that this is a notable book (you can see the original state here), a quick look at the sources shows that they were almost entirely unusable.

The majority of the sources were self-published and primary sources, as it linked to blogs, Goodreads, Amazon, the publisher website, the author's website, and his agent's website. With the exception of the Sun review, I don't think that this book has received any reviews that weren't from blogs. Some larger names are mentioned, but they're only sourced to Netgalley and the author's website, and give off the impression that they are your standard run of the mill book blurbs that authors receive for their book jackets. Book blurbs are 1-2 sentences that are usually written with the intention to get their name on a jacket (raise visibility) and to get the same treatment in return for their books/websites/etc.

A search did not bring up anything that was usable. Other than the article's claim that there was a review in the Sun and the Bookseller announcement that the book rights were purchased, there's really nothing out there. The Pembrokian is not usable as a notability giving RS (although I did leave it since it could back up minor details) since it's an alumni magazine that covers things that alumni does, so it's a primary source. Also given the usage of blogs, Twitter, Amazon sales and reviews, and other unusable sources, I'd like to be able to verify that the Sun review was actually a review before really counting it as a RS.

I'd originally thought that this would just be a quick clean for an article about a topic that was notable, but after cleaning and looking for sources I can't see where this is notable in the slightest. This should not have been accepted through AfC, given that the sources were so incredibly bad. There were a lot of sources, but very few that were usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see more of a rundown of the sources here. Normally I give a blow-by-blow account of each source, but the issue here is that a lot of the unusable sources were cited multiple times and the cite count was over 100, so this would have been far too excessive. Instead I lumped them by type, although the links are probably about half of that. Some of the cites were from the book itself, but I removed them because they were either being used to back up original research or they were used to back up quotes that I ended up removing. I need to stress that there was a lot of original research in the article since there were a lot of instances where they'd take a quote or material from sources that weren't really about the book to back up their claims. (In one instance they used a Lulu published book!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Here is my version of the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm almost finished and I'm more disturbed now. Some of the claims in the article aren't even backed up with the sources. For example, source 71 claims that a book blog (which has been called a "magazine interview" in several different places it's sourced) wrote the following sentence: "Secrets of the Last Nazi has just become the bestselling spy story in the UK, and been classified by Amazon USA as a ‘Number One New Release’ in espionage." The only problem with this? The specific quote comes from the "About the Author" section, which is supplied by the author, his agent, or his publisher. This was not a statement written by the blog itself, yet it's portrayed as if it was making this claim. This is extremely deceptive and a move that I don't think that the blogger would appreciate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Note: I've finished my individual scrutiny of the sources, which you can view here. The bottom line is that several of the sources are grossly misinterpreted, to the point where there seems to have been done deliberately. The sources are predominantly self-published and primary. Only two are remotely usable and a closer look at the sources gives off the very strong impression that the Bookseller source is taken from a press release, given how very similar it is phrased to a source that is an out and out press release reprint. The Book Show radio appearance might be usable, except that we cannot verify how well it was mentioned and given how the other sources were misinterpreted at times, I don't think that there's any way that we could, in good faith, accept it without having some very reliable editors verify the content and all agree that it's usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that Cantelo has been alerting anyone who has edited the article of the AfD. I'm not sure if this would fall under WP:CANVASSING or not, since the editors did edit the article, albeit many were just trivial edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted I think all your deletions. You have deleted references to a book with an ISBN number which quotes this one; a talk show interview; evidence that the book was a best-seller; references to a review in the UK's biggest selling newspaper (which are verifiable); references from the Guardian and Sky News; from award winning blogs; etc etc.  WP notability for a book requires only that there are two external references, and that is more than easily met in this case.  The other references are not there to provide evidence of notability, but to provide information that improves the article - your deletion of them amounts to good-faith vandalism.Cantelo (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep According to Wikipedia's criteria for notability for a page on a book (which are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)), a book qualifies if "it 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]" The more-than-one-hundred references for this entry clearly show:
 * It was reviewed in the UK's biggest selling newspaper (verifiable here and if you look at the newspaper in a library, which is what I did;
 * It was the subject of a protracted radio show programme (verifiable here and if you downloaded the programme on the listen again service, which I did.
 * It features in another book - by Hans Tridle, on page 7, and verifiable on Google books.
 * It was features in bookseller magazine (verifiable through a link in the page itself);
 * It was the subject of many, many very substantial literary reviews by established critics, some of which have won awards and cannot be considered trivial (again, see references on the page itself);
 * And it has features in Amazon's best seller lists (again, evidenced in references in the piece).
 * It more-than-easily meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia.Cantelo (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the talk page, but here's the thing: you NEED to be able to provide sources that give notability. You also need to have sources that can be verifiable per Wikipedia's guidelines. You use a LOT of self-published sources in this case - a lot of blogs, Twitter reviews, and the like. Self-published sources are almost never considered to be reliable in any way (notability or otherwise) because they undergo little to no editorial oversight. This means that anyone can publish anything on a blog and make a claim. The claims that one of the blogs was award winning does not hold any water on here because the blog's award was an award from another blog - meaning a SPS got an award from another SPS. Very, very few awards are the type that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines or make something a reliable source. This award is not one of the awards that would be an exception to this. As far as the ISBN goes, the book was published through Lulu, a self-publishing website that is notorious for publishing everything "as is". There is zero editorial oversight and they have published a lot of things that would not even begin to be seen as a reliable source. The reason I removed the talk show interview is because there is nothing on the site to verify that this interview was ever held and I also don't see a lot on the website about the show's editorial process or the process for the company as a whole. Not every talk show is one that would give notability. I also have to note that several of the sources you added were things like Twitter reviews from random people, Amazon reviews, Goodreads reviews, blog reviews... none of which are in places that Wikipedia particularly cares about. Anyone can write a blog review and those are almost never used in an article because anyone can write a blog. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia does not care about self-published reviews. Amazon rankings also do not matter, as it's a merchant site and those are almost never acceptable as a source in any context. Plus Amazon rankings do not count towards notability per the rules at NBOOK. Now the thing about external sources is that it ultimately depends on the strength of the sources. The only two usable sources were from the Sun (which we cannot verify since it appears to not be online) and a brief article from the Bookseller. These are not the strongest sources and given how unreliable the other sources are, I have to question the strength of the source we cannot verify. I also have to ask: what is your relation to the book/article? I have a strong suspicion that you are a paid editor or someone with an otherwise strong conflict of interest. You can still edit with one, but you do need to disclose this on your userpage. This article is just too full of original research and some of the content is fairly promotional - too much for it to be done by someone who does not have a conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the rundown of the sources mentioned at this AfD specifically: (several of these are listed several times over in the article in various formats, link to the website, link to the Twitter feed, etc)
 * Twitter. This is a Twitter post. It does not show how indepth the review was. Given the weakness of the overall sourcing, I think that verifying this in some form or fashion is important.
 * Twitter. Another post, but this doesn't really go into how indepth the interview is. I also have to question whether or not it is really usable, given the lack of editorial oversight visible on the page for the show. The episode itself is not on the website that's listed on the page.
 * Hans Tridle book. This is the one that is published via Lulu. It doesn't cover the book, but I need to note that since it is a SPS, this cannot be used to back up even basic data since Lulu is notorious for releasing anything, including books that have contained incorrect data. Heck, Lulu is actually on Wikipedia's blacklist, if that gives any indication of how disreputable of a source Lulu can be.
 * Bookseller. This is usable, although I will note that it is brief and to be honest, is the type of article that looks to have been heavily taken from a press release - something that many companies, Bookseller included, will do with press releases. However this is one of the articles I left on the page in this version of the page.
 * The critics: These are almost solely book blogs and Twitter posts. Some of them are cited multiple times to the same review, but through different media, which gives off the impression that there were more people covering the book than there actually were. Some of the reviews are actually book blurbs, which I've defined above.
 * Amazon rankings. Amazon rankings, to put it bluntly, mean nothing on Wikipedia, mostly because these can be very easily altered and because they have so many categories. This also doesn't include the times that books get higher ranked because there's an organized attempt to buy its way up the ranks and when the book was released for free. I'm not saying that King did anything like this, but the fact is that this has happened in the past and this, along with the fact that Amazon does not keep track of its rankings in a way that the NYT does with their book lists, is a reason why this was unanimously considered to be a reason why merchant rankings are not considered to be of any note for Wikipedia. It's actually specifically cited as an exclusion on WP:NBOOK with the bestseller lists.
 * This book just isn't notable enough. All we really have is one brief article that was likely based on a press release and one review that cannot be verified at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be accepting only online sources (not The Sun, for example, back copies of which are available in UK public libraries), and you don't accept verifiable references to those sources (such as the Sun's own twitter feed, or the twitter feed of The Book Show); and you don't accept verifiable references to the Sun in multiple places.  Is this correct, and can you justify this with wiki policy? Re the bookshow, the interview was on the website, but was deleted after seven days, as per their policy.  I listened to it, and heard the interview, which lasted about fifteen minutes (they interviewed four authors in the one hour programme) Cantelo (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with your sources is that you use some of them in a very deceptive fashion - something that you're getting called out for at RS/N. Because some of the claims you make are so outlandish, I want to be able to verify every source used in the article, including the ones that are not online. I also need to know your conflict of interest here because I doubt that you are someone who randomly discovered the book. All COI must be disclosed in your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat again, I just read the book. I did randomly discover it, because I was browsing Amazon and it was recommended to me by the Amazon algorythm.  Please assume good faith.  I have not used sources deceptively; I have tried to use as wide a range of sources as possible to inform the page, which is the point of Wikipedia.  You seem to have misrepresented what I wrote and the way I have used sources, but I will assume good faith on your part.  What is RS/N?  And can you please answer this: You seem to be accepting only online sources (not The Sun, for example, back copies of which are available in UK public libraries), and you don't accept verifiable references to those sources (such as the Sun's own twitter feed, or the twitter feed of The Book Show); and you don't accept verifiable references to the Sun in multiple places.   Is this correct, and can you justify this with wiki policy? Re the bookshow, the interview was on the website, but was deleted after seven days, as per their policy.  I listened to it, and heard the interview, which lasted about fifteen minutes (they interviewed four authors in the one hour programme)Cantelo (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or WP:TNT at best or Redirect  to Ian King This article is is so filled with bad and/or questionable sources that it is best to nuke it and if a couple of good sources can be found in the dross create a new neutral article without all of the puffery. A quick look through the sources show a massive overuse of non-RS material to try to show notability and puff up the significance of the book. The best I can find searching for reviews is a press release. Fsils WP:GNG and I see no evidence it passes WP:NBOOK. I also fear, based on the citation overload, that there may be a conflict of interest issue to deal with as well.  J bh  Talk  11:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history did a good job of cleaning up the article but then was wholely reverted by  bringing the article back to the atrocious state we see it in now. Even with all her work there is not enough for the subject to pass GNG or NBOOK. The sources that remain are poor, I can not read the Sun review but, at best that is only one 'significant' "reliably" published review.  J bh  Talk  11:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended !vote. No objection to Redirect. J bh  Talk  07:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a blatant attempt to generate buzz for a book published by "a fast growing UK based digital publishing imprint open for unsolicited submissions of all fiction genres" - i.e. possibly a vanity press. This article needs nuking as blatant promotion. The conduct of its creator also needs investigating because this looks very Orangemoody. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a book review club or a book seller. Poor RS sources and clearly a promotion work. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rather desperate attempt to smash as many tweets and blogs and the like into one article as possible, to pretend there's notability for a non-notable eBook. Cannot even verify that a "Tom Wright" writes for The Sun, but even if he did it'd be hard to take a book review seriously from a source that advertises "‘Alien corpse’ found at site of the meteor blast that wiped out dinosaurs", among other gems. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was once libelled by Dominc Mohan. Just sayin'. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This has at least three strong sources: the Sun, the radio interview and the Bookseller magazine article. It clearly meets notability rules.  It also looks like the author has tried to be neutral, giving equal space to negative reviews as well as positive ones.  If you don't like the tone, or think the article is promotional, then change it.  But it should be kept because it more than easily qualifies by the criteria.  Tippex for the soul (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — Tippex for the soul (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Cramming it full of tweets and promotional language and reverting anyone who tries to tone it down is not trying to be neutral. If the book does deserve an article (and since it's published only as an ebook by an unknown publisher, that seems pretty unlikely), this would not be the article. On a number of grounds. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Whether the book is notable or not, this article is obvious promofluff, and should just be nuked. Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This debate is getting a little mad, and a little nasty. Secrets of the Last Nazi is a paperback, which is how I read it - this is verfiable: you can buy the paperback (link to sales site reverted). There are lots and lots of sources about the book, several of which are notable and most verifiable. I did not revert all attempts to 'improve' the article, just the vandalism from one author which deleted a hundred references. To argue that this book doesn't meet the notability criteria you have to believe that twitter accounts at both The Sun and Talk Radio Europe were hacked. Is anybody seriously saying that? No. So it's notable, OK? Cantelo (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If there was any doubt that you were here for some purpose other than blatant sales promotion, your inclusion of a completely pointless sales link makes that doubt nonexistent. Choor monster (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. I'm not allowed to use offline sources because they can't be 'verified', and I'm not allowed to produce links to things which verify my sources because it's promotion. Can you just take off your lynch mob hat, please, presume good faith - or at least an open mind - then do google searches yourself - you'll see this really is a paperback. Is there any community spirit on Wikipedia? Cantelo (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if we could verify The Sun's review beyond a Tweet about it, it wouldn't be enough. This Chick Reads, The Welsh Librarian, and Writing Belle are all paid reviews. While that doesn't mean they can't be used in the article necessarily, it does mean they don't contribute to the subject's notability. The Bookseller source looks to be a press release. Even if all of these were legitimate, coverage is still pretty poor -- but they're not legitimate. Fails WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites, these are all routine book blogs. I could sign up with an account (or into my own abandoned, but formerly popular-ish book blog) and write an article in ten minutes. The problem with accepting these is that they're ultimately self-published sources and if they're true to form with most book blogs, they were likely solicited by the publisher, agent, or author. Basically, retaining them on the article is a slippery slope: blogs are rarely used to back up reception on any type of article and allowing them to be used as a non-notability giving SPS on one article is pretty much inviting them to be used on another article. If we allow them in one article then we'd need to allow them in every article - and doing this would seriously damage Wikipedia's credibility. Like it or not, there are people who look at our articles and say "they used it in that article, so it must be a reliable source". Other people will see it and assume that because we used a blog in one article, that it must be a reliable source. Now some might say "but it's just a review", but people claim things in reviews as well - history factoids, claims about an author, and so on. You can see this being done to various extents with this article. What's to stop someone from using a blog to back up something potentially contentious and then argue for the blog's inclusion because it won't show notability and is only used to back up an opinion? Not to mention that this would only fuel arguments that Wikipedia is beyond unreliable and shouldn't be accessed. This is why we should only use SPS if they've been thoroughly vetted in RS. Granted it's unlikely for the entire Wikipedia to topple over one article (that's likely to be deleted) but arguments can pile up over time. (Preaching to the choir, but still there's reason for concern with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Bookoutre solicits authors to submit books and does not pay advances. . No information on whether or not they charge up front fees or not.  Based on what I have been able to find out on the web they publish as ebook and print-on-demand. Not sure this is much better than a vanity press.  J bh  Talk  17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rhododendrites. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Trimmed the article in line with WP:PRIMARY:
 * Made into a redirect to Iain King:
 * As I said at WP:RSN there's little doubt this will become over time a separate article on the book, only there's not enough (yet), so a redirect to a section on the author's article should suffice for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the type of sourcing used in this article, I really think that the main article for the author should be seen as extremely suspect. It looks like the same type of sourcing is used in the author's article, so I'm going to go over that and if it's as poor as this article is, I'll nominate that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at the author's article shows that there is a similar notation style with sources and it also tends to use merchant sources to back up quotes. In one instance it uses a Barnes and Nobles merchant link to back up the quote "ripping apart traditional tenets of morality, dismantling even the golden rule that you should 'do unto others as you would have done unto you". This is a quote used in the book jacket and in the main article it is used as if it was a review. In other words, there seems to be the same deceptive use of sources as in this book article. If this is the same user that created the book article, I'd like to petition that he not be allowed to edit anything related to King. If it's another editor who did this, then we need to take a good hard look at that editor's habits since this is not acceptable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No prejudice against appropriate trimming of the Iain King article to WP:V and RS standards. At first glance, with the caveat that I'm new to the topic, I suppose there'll be enough left to make the author pass WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR, but indeed, severe trimming would be warranted afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if he even merits an article, to be honest. The sources are done in a very similar manner and offhand I'm getting the strong impression that this is a paid editing ring. Once I'm done with checking out the sources on his article and looking to see who made what edits, I'm opening up an ANI thread and a sockpuppetry check. I would recommend against redirecting this to the author's page until the sources have been run through and vetted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't redirect this until the AfD is closed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep to one noticeboard. My replies are at WP:RSN. I'll re-instate the redirect for now, let's concentrate on smarting up the author's article (which is not under threat of being deleted anywhere soon). There are quite probably enough RSs to keep that article, I found some not even used in the author's article yet, as mentioned at RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Tokyogirl79, as a result of the temp redirect I spent a long time looking at the wrong article.Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken, stop redirecting the article. THis is still at AfD and redirecting it prematurely gives off the impression that it is closed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Iain King probably deserves an article, but at the present 'his' article is full of puffery, randomly he is said to have negotiated with Sinn Féin/IRA, the source (his local paper), says he was amongst those who held discussions with on them on behalf of Liberal party, who (being out of power), could not negotiate anything. King, on inspection was a 1-year 'press-fellow'at Wolfson, notable, but not the same as being a fellow. Everywhere I looked, I found similar inflated claims, often with dubious sources, there is probably enough real achievement, but at the moment it's hard to see what it really is. Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my concern as well. I think that he's possibly notable, but I'd have to go through the sources first. If he is notable, the old article would need to be TNT'd to discourage reversion to the previous puffery. I have no problem writing his article if this is the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete book per Tokyogirl79, Guy, and Rhododendrites, insufficient evidence of notability. Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (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.