Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Captain Smith


 * 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 both articles Gnangarra 12:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Space Captain Smith

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

This article was created by. The references for the article are a review of the novel at a steampunk blog written by Ottens, and a review in a magazine published by Nick Ottens and hosted at ottens.co.uk. This falls far short of the standard of Notability (books), which requires multiple non-trivial published works about the book, specifically stating that personal websites and blogs are considered trivial. Darkspots (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page, the biography of the author of Space Captain Smith:


 * I Object, obviously. Frankly, I did not know that a published book had to be proved "notable" to be allowed;  I figured that the mere fact that it was published made it notable.  The references which I provided served merely to proof that this book is steampunk; not to proof its notability.
 * Now, if we omit the blog reference, this I understand can be considered trivial, we still have the references in the online publication, Gatehouse Gazette. Note that though I am indeed Editor of this publication, I did not conduct the interview with Mr Frost therein.  Ottens (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:BK as mentioned above. Specifically, the only one of the literary notability guidelines that's even vaguely applicable is the first one and I'm afraid that it absolutely fails to meet that. The words "multiple", "non-trivial" and "independent" are certainly at question here and I'd even go as far as pointing a finger at the phrase "published works". Nick, you may also want to read the self-publication section of the guidelines I linked to above. Whilst not obviously applicable it does contain the sentence "...it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article" and considering that the majority of your contributions are related to this author or the publishing house, it may be something to bear in mind. OBM | blah blah blah 13:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of my contributions? If you mean, over the past two days, you might be right but it's not as though I signed up to promote this book.  Indeed, by no means would I consider myself an "interested party" in this regard;  I have no direct ties with Mr Frost, let alone the company that published his novel!
 * Considering that the book has only been published a mere two months ago, not an awful lot has been written about it yet. Now, I've created pages for books before (Steampunk, Queen Victoria's Bomb) and the notability of those was never questioned.  Indeed, neither have been augmented with much references, Queen Victoria's Bomb none at all, and yet they're presumed notable enough.  Frankly, this doesn't make much sense to me at all!  Ottens (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I apologise for that; I'd just noticed that I had generalised a little! My points still stand, though. As for the other books you referenced be aware that inclusion is not an indicator of notability (and apologies for throwing guidelines and essays at you). OBM | blah blah blah 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your points don't entirely stand I'm afraid, This is hardly a self-publish or vanity press. Please check the Myrmidon Books publishers site. They are a relatively new publishing house but no fake. I'd also advise you to take a look here - Waterstones store availability figures across the UK. Gothnet 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing what I'm saying; my direction to the self-publication section of WP:BK was in reference to the fact that the sole editor supplied the majority of the original sources and not with an aim of bringing the publishers into question. My point, however, is that notability of this book is not being asserted in this article, not that the book isn't hilarious, well-liked or available at most good bookshops. OBM | blah blah blah 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite all right. As far as Space Captain Smith is concerned, you'll find plenty of reviews and blurbs about it on blogs and websites like amazon, but so far I haven't found a review in a "non-trivial" source yet--except the Gatehouse Gazette that is, which is apparently, for some reason yet unexplained, not acceptable.  As I mentioned, though, it was published only two months ago!  (Not to mention that I think it strange anyway that a published work must be referenced to elsewhere to be considered "notable".)  Ottens (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason for the "Gazette" being unacceptable as a source has already been explained by the nominator; that it is edited, published and hosted by yourself. OBM | blah blah blah 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So if someone else would have written this page and refered to the Gatehouse Gazette it would have been perfectly acceptable? Ottens (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would have helped a little... but the notability of the magazine is itself in doubt so I don't think it would have helped much. There are a couple of problems evident here; the non-notability of the sources and the apparent conflict of interest shown by you being the sole editor of this article and the main source of the, er... sources. OBM | blah blah blah 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; the only source coming close to being reliable is the first issue of an online publication which itself seems non-notable (and whose article I'll tag for deletion). WP:COI issues don't help. I'll have a look at the other articles mentioned by Ottens; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article, and if the others cannot be sourced, they might well be deleted, too. Huon (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BK. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Obvious WP:COI at work as well. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to "Assume good faith"? Ottens (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Observation since it would be improper for me to vote, but if you don't find Scott Pack's review notable, then you reveal your ignorance of UK publishing. And of course, there is Dirk Maggs's comment as cited on the book itself. As well as failing to assume good faith (see above) you are applying arbitrarily a policy that was designed to keep vanity publications from cluttering wikipedia up, not books from an entirely reputable independent publisher of a Booker nominated novel Icundell (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to mention that Notability (books) is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines can be, and in practice sometimes are, overruled by a consensus of editors in a deletion discussion like this one. Darkspots (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have read this book and look forward to the next one from this author. The book was heavily featured in WH Smiths (where I bought it) Winewhisky (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — Winewhisky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I have read this excellent book, and am eager to read the next in the series. I bought it in Waterstone's, where it was featured in their "3 for 2" selection. Surely the endorsement from Dirk Maggs (of HitchHiker's Guide fame) alone is of sufficient quality to maintain the book's presence? Woodhome (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — Woodhome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Good book. Not a vanity or self-publisher, Waterstones stock physical copies across the country. Gothnet 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — Gothnet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete It doesn't seem to have hit any of the regular SF blogs, forums, or rec.sf.written (where you get a lot of authors also) yet. I can't see how Gatehouse Gazette would be acceptable no matter who wrote it. If it becomes notable then it can be recreated. The publisher's promotion efforts can't be used as evidence it is notable. This is not in any way a comment on the quality of the book, and if my library gets it I shall read it Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep since I have added a couple of new independent references to this article and done a bit of reformatting. It clears verifiability with no problem and seems just on the right side of the notability borderline. Lots of reviews in online magazines and blogs, about what I'd expect for a recently published book. - Dravecky (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to comment, you added an online merchant/listing service of the book, which goes towards WP:V but adds nothing to the notability of the book as defined by our guidelines, as well as a local newspaper that says that Mr Frost's sci-fi comedy Space Captain Smith will also soon be in the shops, which is a trivial mention, a "listing" as it's called. Neither increases the notability of the book, the way the relevant guideline is written. Darkspots (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete almost totally unknown book: Worldcat shows holdings only by the distributor, Alibris, and by British Library--similarly for the authors other book. DGG (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep also the Toby Frost page. It has been nominated for deletion without any being given. Ottens (talk) 11:52, 14 July 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.