Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of the New Jack Era


 * 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 per consensus. WP:NBOOK "keep" argument fails. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Chronicles of the New Jack Era

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of meeting WP:NBOOK -- the references are not supportive of notability, and neither is google; neither author has an article, and New Jack City only makes a single mention of the character supposedly based on the author of this book. The "#1 Best Seller" line on the cover image appears to be a total fiction. Add to that an unencyclopedic tone throughout. — swpb T 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 12:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: My own search also turned up only trivial mentions of the book. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep.  One of the key criteria in NBOOK is that it's the basis for a notable  film--in this case, it's more complicated. But I would say the principle holds: the autobio of the principal subject of a famous film is notable. It's something that people could well expect to find in an encyclopedia .   DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The criterion in WP:NBOOK I think you're trying to use says: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture..." 1. This book did not exist at the time the movie was made, and so cannot be said to have had any contribution toward it; 2. Nothing here even comes close to a reliable source; and 3. The film is a work of fiction, considered by the Writers Guild of America to be based on an "original story and screenplay" by someone with no association to this book. The claim by this author that he is the subject of the film is therefore extremely tenuous. Alone, any one of points 1, 2, or 3 would completely sink your argument; all three are true. I get that you're a retentionist, but by the guidelines, you've got an awfully weak case here. — swpb T 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete the claim on the book cover that this book is a "#1 bestseller" should be some kind of clue that this is all highly suspect. An ISBN search via World Cat and other sources doesn't indicate that it even really exists as a published work. No reliable sources at all. We're obviously not going to keep an article based solely on its own extravagant claims. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, So, were author "Gerald G. Money" (abandoned Facebook page here ) and his "book" a hoax? Sounds like it  was.  Admittedly, if it was a hoax, it was an elaborate one and I'm not sure what it was all in aid of.  Would have guessed movie promotion, except it's an old movie.  At all events, found no sources to establish that it's a real book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. per mentioned criteria at NBOOk per user DGG reasoning. It holds.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read my dissection of DGG's argument above? Would you care to respond to it? If not, you're not adding anything to this discussion. Remember that AfD is not a vote. — swpb T 18:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't really find anything to show that this book is notable or that the claims in it are ultimately true. I kind of get the impression that this was likely self-published via a vanity publisher, which would explain why it's not listed on any of the regular websites like Amazon, who will sell anything as long as it's submitted in some format. Now as far as the film claims go, that's a bit difficult since there's also a lack of reliable sources that actually back up the claim that G. Money is the basis for the character "Gerald "Gee Money" Wells". It might be that he's telling the truth or it could be that he's someone who either named himself this after the fact or believes that the character is based on him. Without some sort of confirmation in a reliable source (newspaper, DVD commentary, etc) we have to err on the side of caution and assume that he's likely not the basis of the character. I did try to find sources and it was admittedly difficult because of so many false positives, but so far the only thing that has been confirmed is that the Chambers Brothers (gang) was a source of inspiration for the film. There's already a draft at Draft:The Chronicles of the New Jack Era, so the best outcome here would be to let the editor continue to work on finding sources and add them to the draft. Offhand this is the type of thing that'd be best served as a one sentence mention in the main article for the film, since the gist of this could be summed up fairly quickly. However before we can do that, we have to confirm that his claims are legit - and so far all we have are interviews in non-mainstream sources that wouldn't be considered RS per Wikipedia's fairly stringent guidelines for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:17, 20 April 2016 (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.