Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Reason


 * 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. Once SPA input is properly discounted (and given that the SPAs apparently do not understand what constitutes reliable and in-depth coverage for purposes of determining notability), there is a clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 15:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

State of Reason

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable book. No (zero) independent sources and apparently available only on Kindle. The article creator and main contributor appears to have a COI as well. RegentsPark (comment) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Article lists three independent sources.
 * Three of the books in the series are available in paperback. One of the books is also being sold by Barnes and Noble.
 * The Article is linked to by two other Articles. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of the books listed in the Article are also listed on Google Books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend KEEP. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that this editor has tried to add a mention of this book to the George Washington Bridge article without any reliable secondary sources, then called a removal of this content "vandalism". The fact that I couldn't find any secondary coverage of this book at all, while trying to find a source for this addition, is concerning. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that this editor deleted multiple segments of the Article en-mass simultaneously of discrete instances of In Culture which were referenced. Explanation given by editor was only "remove cruft". 68.2.61.80 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I retained everything that did have a reference; the only other paragraph that I removed was not referenced, either (it only contains a inline external link). The point is, I was trying to find a secondary source to justify retaining the mention of Loss of Reason in the GWB article but was unable to do so. In fact, I can't find any secondary sources for this book anywhere (a Google search only uncovers unrelated things which use that exact phrase). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are 5 secondary sources for books in the State Of Reason series (including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason"), listed right at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: I did find this source:, but that might be a WP:SPS and I don't know if the author counts as a subject-matter expert. All other sources found were either not independent or were trying to sell me the ebook or a print copy. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Clicking the "Find Sources / Google / Books" link above (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22State+of+Reason%22) brings up a list of books. Contained within this list, at number 9, is the first book in the series, "Loss Of Reason". 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the link it turned up: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Loss_of_Reason/G-0YswEACAAJ?hl=en
 * This Google Books link is independent and offers nothing for sale.
 * The entire series including links to all 7 books in the series can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg
 * The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep:  Clicking the "Find Sources / Google / Books" link ABOVE (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22State+of+Reason%22+-wikipedia) brings up a list of books. Contained within this list, at number 9, is the first book in the series, "Loss Of Reason". This is the link that turned up: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Loss_of_Reason/G-0YswEACAAJ?hl=en
 * This Google Books link is independent and offers nothing for sale.
 * The entire series including links to all 7 books in the series can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg
 * The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Notability (books), the book needs to be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Mere inclusion in a list of books is insufficient (see note 1 on the page linked above). Please also review our conflict of interest guidelines. RegentsPark (comment) 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per the table below. I couldn't find any better sources.

-- Mike 🗩 16:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * On what basis is Pirate Patty consider "not reliable"? 68.2.61.80 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add the WorldCat cite above to your table. Pomgrom (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pirate Patty is a blog and is thus not acceptable as a reliable source.WorldCat is a repository of bibliographic data. It is reliable for verifying certain data about a book but does not provide significant coverage about books by itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true. WorldCat includes the number of libraries, their names, and locations that hold various editions of a book in their collections. It also includes individual reviews. WorldCat is even listed as an acceptable reliable source by Wikipedia. Pomgrom (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pomgrom, your worldcat source and almost all other sources listed merely confirm the existence of this book or series. You need to show evidence of notability and, unfortunately, there is zero evidence for that. RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pirate Patty is a WP:BLOG. Blogs CAN be reliable, but it's a high standard. Read WP:BLOG, Pirate Patty would not qualify. -- Mike 🗩 13:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

— Pomgrom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per the table below. Two sources that meet General Notability Guidelines required. Six that meet GNG listed.Note: Cite #4 WorldCat (https://www.worldcat.org/title/929458752) displays a catalog of the series including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason" which is available in paper and ebook, held in 39 library collections, and lists 109 reviews. Pomgrom (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Two things that I think is wrong with your table. Firstly, you have two WP:BLOGS listed as reliable (they're not). Second, WorldCat is a database, it isn't significant coverage. Think "paragraphs" when determining WP:SIGCOV. Also, are you the same editor as they IP editor above? -- Mike 🗩 14:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please disclose your motivation, "Darth Mike" for attempting to remove this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Denying coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling professional reviewers "blogs." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. Don't you work? Pomgrom (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I could say the same. Please disclose your motivation, "Pomgrom" for attempting to keep this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Thinking that coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling blogs "professional reviewers." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. I won't ask whether or not you work, as it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Also, I have stricken again your duplicate keep !vote. You have already !voted, you can't !vote again. Also, learn what vandalism is before accusing me. If you suspect me of vandalism, feel free to report me to WP:AIV and if you suspect me of having ulterior motives, report me to WP:COIN. -- Mike</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strikethrough vote no longer necessary - have combined "vote" and comments with table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomgrom (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment to Closer: All keep !votes have come from single-purpose accounts who have had very little to no activity outside of this one topic. -- <b style="color:white">Mike</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> 14:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the many libraries that carry books in the series, the large number of reviews, and the NetGalley review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Snow Energy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)  — Winter Snow Energy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * NetGalley would not make something notable. Per their own about page and how it works, they just give copies of books to member to review. The review you linked to by Kim C., just states that Kim is an educator. For a review to be meaningful, it must come from a reliable source. -- <b style="color:white">Mike</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> 14:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK per the sources discussed here. No plausible merge/redirect target. Suriname0 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike . . . Member of the band Loss Of Reason? Pomgrom (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find reliable reviews about the book in my searches for sources. I do not consider Pirate Patty, a blog, to be a reliable source. The book meets neither Notability nor Notability (books). Cunard (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember Closer, GNG are just guidelines, the application of which much is based on opinion and preference. Not hard and fast rules, otherwise more than 20% of the text on Wikipedia would not exist.
 * Flexibility is important too, taking in the scope and feel and trend.
 * For example, all the books in this series are listed in "GoogleBooks In Author," here: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Miles+A.+Maxwell%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2mO3J5OyBAxWTOTQIHQgVCg8QmxMoAHoECB8QAg, but no one has yet included this web address as a cite. A common type of problem with Wikipedia. Pomgrom (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Pomgrom, no need to worry about a specific citation being present in the article; the assessment that other discussion participants make (and that the closer should use as well) is based on the sources both cited on the page and raised here in this discussion. Relevant citations can always be added to the article later. Suriname0 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * "'Strong Keep"' I'm just reading through some of these comments and find them to be out of character for individuals who would truly be concerned about an author's work. But I'm just a reader. All I know is that I have found that I can find almost every one of this series of books in my small local library system in Texas, and that says a lot.
 * LEESE6388 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — LEESE6388 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete . Fairly obvious, fails GNG. I couldn’t find it in the Bodleian, so I kind of doubt above SPA’s claim even if it was at all relevant to notability. Not much else I can say. Has a notice been made on WP:COIN yet? Fermiboson (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2023 (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.