Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump


 * 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   keep. Courcelles 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. All references shown and few found outside are blogs and other unreliable type sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Harry Turtledove is a well-known writer in his field, most of his works have Wikipedia page. In general,Fantasy books have Wikipedia pages even when they are by less well-known writers. This particular work,as depicting a reality where magic works as the equivalent of modern technology is of particular interest to people interested in this field.Andreas Kaganov (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your perspective, but that doesn't exempt it from WP:Notability_(books). We don't make exceptions because you, or I, or several people, believe that the author is notable even if the book isn't.  We hold all books to the same criteria, regardless of author or publisher.  In an era of hundreds of thousands of self-published books of dubious quality, content and credibility, this is even more important.  What is also troubling (but not related to AFD in particular) is the linking to the full text of the book, which shows a clear copyright with all rights reserved, without any copyright exception or licensing information, on a website that likely fails wp:rs and hasn't updated their own copyright claim since 2007.  Dennis Brown (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That website is Baen's Webscriptions. Baen is the publisher and they make quite a few of their works available for free. In this case, they are offering only an excerpt. The article's external link is misleading, but there are no copyright issues with it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * is the whole book online, it isn't an excerpt. (same link, just click on 'contents'). Not really an issue for AFD, but still worrisome since it shows the copyright for the original, show that it was actually distributed by Simon & Schuster, and has the notice Copyright© 1993 by Harry Turtledove All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form.  then prints the whole thing.  It may be perfectly legitimate, but there is no indication that it is printed with permission or licensed in any way.  Again, not an AFD issue per se, and notability still isn't established clearly in this case, but at the very least, it looks odd.  What we need to really focus on here is whether or not the book meets the inclusion criteria for books, which I still maintain that it clearly does not.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the whole book; it is just the first four chapters. While the contents page lists more than 4 chapters, if you click on them you will find that only the first 4 are actually displayed. However, even if it was the whole book, it still wouldn't be an issue. While Simon & Schuster may have been the distributor, that is irrelevant as Baen was the publisher (distributors and publishers are entirely different things) and Baen is a very reputable publisher. There is nothing at all odd about a publisher offering an excerpt of a book they are selling. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick glance through the "scholar" link above shows multiple independent, non-trivial sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, I happened upon this discussion and I just don't understand what is going on here and why this is being discussed at all. This is not a "self-published book", it is not by some unknown writer. Anyone interested in this field knows that Harry Turtledove is one of the most well-known writers active in it. I feel that to say this book is "not notable" is just ridiculous. Blanche of King&#39;s Lynn (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. On the first page, you have More Giants of the Genre By Michael McCarty, the book is mentioned in a list of every book by the same author. No other mention.  In http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/professional-development/childlit/books/KUNZEL.pdf "It can be a mystery like Harry Turtledove’s  The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump or a hardboiled detective story like Jonathan Lethem’s  Gun, with Occasional Music".  The rest of the citations, are all by H Turtledove, the author of this article.  So you have two mentions in passing, none of them significant.  The rest of the "cites" on the later search pages are just mentions in lists of books, not actually covering the content.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ISFDB page linked in the article lists reviews in several major genre publications, sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2011 (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.