Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiked (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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty ■ 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiked (novel)
A novel printed by Xlibris (a print-on-demand publisher) with the only evidence of notability offered being an interview with the author in a 2-page library newsletter. has worked on very few articles, mostly the article for the author, C.J. Beck (which notes how his student newspaper won a Student Newspaper of the Year Award in 1968 under his editorship, and which also plugs "the adventure thriller Spiked") and the article for Beck's other novel, Sizzle. Malundi also keeps removing tags requesting cleanup. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable reference to fictional work ... but "An ex-White House correspondent and his Zulu partner in Apartheid-era Johannesburg, track down a cannon satellite launcher to Namibia" ?  That's, erm, different.  — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn, vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, if this is a self-published book, it has a large number of Googles, doesn't it? 2200 for my search of Spiked + "C.J. Beck".  My attention was drawn to this debate by a premature request for review already posted at DRV... persistent editor, that. Xoloz 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate Beck may not be Balzac, who you'll remember owned his own printing press, but his readers seem to endorse if their comments at various on-line booksellers are to be believed. National Union of Journalists' award supports credentials for a book with journalist protagonists.  "Different?"  Check Gerald Bull entry and then see if his science has been developed much since his death or taken up in fiction.  As for comment "Malundi also keeps removing tags requesting cleanup", sorry, but that was only once, and only after I supplied the request for a citation. By all means clean up, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Malundi 8 March 2006
 * Has anyone proposing deletion read the book? Rationale appears to be based on Wikipedia procedure and emerging culture rather than content. A case of the tail wagging the dog? When one member alludes to Malundi's small number of contributions it just becomes plain silly. I believe if they read the book they would see its value. This book is a sound contribution to the discussion on Apartheid-era South Africa, inner workings of journalism and a ballistics science still-born since Gerald Bull's assassination. On-line bookseller reviews are supportive. I appreciate we need to ensure conformity with Wikipedia style but let's not do it at the expense of substance. Nominated by Malundi 8 March 2006 comment moved from AfD talk page
 * When "one member" (which happens to be myself) alludes to your small number of contributions, it is because members with small numbers of contributions frequently don't fully understand what Wikipedia is, what it is for and what it isn't for. (Not to mention that members with small numbers of contributions, all of which revolve around one particular subject or person -- for instance, a self-published author -- often look like they're trying to promote that subject or person.)  For instance, they may mistakenly think that the issue is whether the subject is good, and try to convince us that the subject is good -- for instance, that "if they read the book they would see its value".  By the way, you removed cleanup tags not once, but twice, and the second time, when you "supplied the request for a citation", it was not a satisfactory citation; it was merely a link to a library newsletter's interview with the author, and nothing in the interview supports the claim that "Spiked, advances the discussion and much like the work of Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton is sufficiently technical to provide starting points for policy makers and scientists." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete self-published book by an author who seems hell-bent on promoting it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the compliments from Antaeus and Guy implying I'm the author.  On what do you base that a self-published book is somehow inferior or that I am the author?  There are many of us in our group who enjoyed reading this book. Also there are many good reviews on Amazon,B&N, Borders etc.,  Yet none of you cite a credible rationale for deletion.  Just assumptions. By the way, the "library" you offhandedly refer to is the American Library Association.  Every one has to start somewhere with Wikipedia and beginners will make errors.  Maybe I should return to reading a good book.  Malundi 8 March 2006
 * Amazon reviews are not objective and are vulnerable to manipulation (and five of them are anonymous). I did not say you are the author, only that the author seems hell-bent on self-promotion.  The credible rationale for deletion is that it is a self-published book.  Yes, everyone has to start somewhere - and that somewhere is not Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability.  Wikipedia is not the place to change that.  Postdlf 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning toward delete for now because I'm not sure how to assess the notability of this, but I would like to say that I don't think self-published books are non-notable in principle. I think we should stick with the notability criterion here and not get side-tracked into discussing motives or media. If it's notable, it's notable; if Malundi wants it kept, he should supply evidence of the book's importance, which is what the cleanup tags were asking for in the first place.  &middot; rodii &middot;  01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends. I have five volumes of Robert Gunther's self-published "Early Science in Oxford" which was self-published but is one of the leading authorities on Robert Hooke and is cited by Margaret 'Espinasse in her biography of Hooke (it's actually 'Espinasse's copy I have).   If he was not also the founder and first curator of the Museum of Science at Oxford I still strongly doubt that we would have an article on Robert Gunther on the strength of this book, and we do not have an article on the book at all even though it is cited in other books (see ).  I think a self-published book has a massive hill to climb; any really successful ones are likely to be taken on by a mainstream publisher long before the question of encyclopaedic notability comes about. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, maybe if there were a review in the New York Times Review of Books, I would change my mind, but self-published books need a high degree of verifiability and notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with JzG and Zoe. "Massive hill to climb" sounds about right--I just want to be clear that "self-published" is not in itself assurance of non-notability.  &middot; rodii &middot;  00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Adrian. Stifle 00:31, 11 March 2006 (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.