Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete History of The Howling


 * 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. Not a snowball's chance of another outcome. czar 22:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Complete History of The Howling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a contested proposed deletion. The subject fails WP:GNG. There are a lot of references but all of them direct to minor blogs, fanpages or similar non-notability aiding websites. The article also appears to be promotional. wikitigresito (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not promotional material & citations come from reliable websites and sources which have there own Wikipedia page. My previous upload on the author was also deleted even thou I included an academic book he was in. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)  — LisaHadley2018 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Striking off commentary of confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:NB. This book should be referenced on the page for The Howling as a see also. --Jaldous1 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This does meet WP:NB. This book should have its own solo page The Complete History Of The Howling. It has a foreword by Philippe Mora and an article by Bill Forsche. It is its own work and stands solo to the film franchise and the citations included are of reputable websites.Activist838 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)— Activist838 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi wikitigresito minor blogs, fanpages or similar non-notability aiding websites?
 * Please can you elaborate?
 * All the citations I clicked on link to established news outlets who would not cover The Complete History of The Howling if the book wasn't notable and newsworthy. This page clearly should not have been placed for deletion. Activist838 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP : I am using this article in my coursework DO NOT DELETE
 * I have read the article about The Complete History of The Howling and I have visited the citation links referencing the book.
 * I disagree that this article on The Complete History of The Howling should be deleted. I have personally found the article of much interest and its links are to established well-known websites that have their own Wikipedia pages and fit into the Wiki criteria.
 * I have additionally noticed both authors associated with The Complete History of The Howling have had their Wikipedia pages removed, yet the argument by the creator clearly establishes their identity as notable authors. The lead author, Bryn Curt James Hammond, has been included in an academic book discussing his work within the Horror industry, yet his page was deleted even though the evidence provided clearly shows the author is established and notable.
 * I’m concerned about these articles being placed for deletion without any supporting evidence that actually backs up any of these claims. I was using the author’s Wiki page with this article for my coursework and now it appears it’s been placed for a deletion. I’m genuinely worried about Wikipedia’s future as this page certainly meets WP:NB.
 * Very disappointed by the above comments and I feel Wikipedia needs to take the power from the public when it comes to deleting pages as this is absurd. DO NOT DELETE Snakebite 1965 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Snakebite 1965 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A sockpuppetry investigation has been opened. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Definitely WP:ADVERT...and am I seeing that there's a dresser full of cozy foot coverings above me? Please declare if you're the same person, Activist and Snakebite.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 1.) It would be great to follow the widely established conventions on how to format a contribution at AfD. 2.) Please declare if you are the same person, Activist, Snakebite and LisaHadley. wikitigresito (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppetry investigation has been opened. -The Gnome (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, I see that the article was created by a very new editor who, if above "keepers" are indeed sockpuppets, may not be aware of the seriousness of their usage here on wp, also that this article went through the AFC process, something that should be commended for (i am sure that we all wish that more wikikits and wikipups would do this:)), and finally (at last!:), wonder if the experienced editor who accepted this article,, could set out their reasons behind the acceptance here, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Hi coolabahapple, MatthewVanitas was a great support behind my article The Complete History of The Howling and gave me brilliant advice & feedback, I cannot praise MatthewVanitas enough and I wish there was more experienced editors on Wikipedia like him. My article in my belief was accepted based on my hard work and I followed Wikipedia guidelines and offered knowledge on the subject matter. I then built around my article creating offshoots. My article The Complete History of The Howling clearly is not an advertisement or a promotional piece this can be seen by simply reading it. I have asked two of the editors why they have claimed my citations do not fit in with Wikipedia’s guidelines when they are well known & respected news outlets with their own Wikipedia pages but they didn’t reply. I’m hurt I received no information or even input before my article The Complete History of The Howling was put forward for a speedy deletion after it was accepted by Matthew Vanitas. This is my second article that has been deleted by the same people above. The first was on the author, not authors and I fully kept it inline with all of Wikipedia’s guidelines and I gave supporting evidence why it should have been saved. I even included an academic book which included the said author. Once I included that additional citation within less than 24hours Two of the above people also involved in this pages possible deletion, immediately deleted the entire article. I supplied citations that included ABC registered publication’s which didn’t simply mention the author briefly as claimed in fact they dedicated four pages to the author about his work. I had other articles planned but I feel really victimised and that anything I do will be forced into deletion by the persons involved in both my previous and current article. Im bewildered why I’m receiving so much negativity when my article had already been accepted by an experienced editor. As I said Matthew Vanitas was brilliant & a few others helped me tidy my article The Complete History of The Howling then for unknown reasons my article was pushed into consideration for deletion. I hope Matthew Vanitas and yourself can reverse this terrible and hurtful situation & my article can be rescued. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't see any indication that this publication meets WP:NBOOKS. --bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi u|Bonadea MatthewVanitas accept my article are you calling his judgement into question? Why do you feel it doesn’t meet WP:NBOOKS? LisaHadley2018 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * duplicate "keep" !vote struck --bonadea contributions talk 10:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Bonadea my citations discredit your reason for deletion. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Three things about discussions: first and most important, each user can only post one "keep" or "delete", so you will need to remove all your "keeps" but one (otherwise somebody will be along to put tags through them). Secondly it is usually not a good idea to reply to every single post in a discussion - see this - and finally, please don't ping people more than once without giving them a chance to respond. Personally I would prefer if you did not ping me at all to this discussion. Thank you.
 * As for your specific comments, I am certainly not going to start discussing another editor and I am not calling anybody's judgment into question. This discussion is about the article and its merits. I'm not also a fan of repeating arguments that have already been made repeatedly, but all right: the references are not sufficient to show notability as they are mainly to minor or non-WP:RS publications, and many of them don't even mention the subject of the article. This is my conclusion after going through the edits (see also WP:CITEKILL). That the article is basically an advert can be fixed by editing, and all the inappropriate references can be removed, but lack of notability can't be edited away. -bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bonadea are you calling full page coverage on ABC registered websites on the book The Complete History of The Howling, that are only speaking about the book on those pages and are stating there excitement about the book The Complete History of The Howling none notable? Also you have called another editors decision into question by disagreeing with the editor in the first place. This is also a page to argue the reason for and against. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * RE: The Complete History of The Howling, Wikitigresito was involved in the quick deletion of my previous article on the author Bryn Curt James Hammond and accused me of the following: Delete Looks like someone really wants this article to be included. Going through the references I became more and more convinced that this is a case of WP:REFBOMB with the intention of faking notability (Subject not mentioned in sources... subject mentioned only briefly etc.). I also tried to take into account what was stated above but I didn't help me finding independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage about the subject, it felt more like a smoke screen.
 * I provided independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage on the author which included print & digital media. One Magazine included four pages on the author in an ABC registered weekly magazine with a circulation of 163,392 a second ABC certified publication about the authors work which included an interview ran two full pages and even highlighted the coverage on the front cover of the magazine.
 * ABC is the media industry’s stamp of trust. They deliver industry-agreed standards for media brand measurement across print, digital and events. They also verify data, processes and good practice to industry-agreed standards. My sources where not unreliable or a smoke screen but wikitigresito & RandyKitten disagreed with me and refused to state why they are making such allegations. Two websites which run a full page of coverage on The Complete History of The Howling which is not brief are also ABC registered & recently Fangoria even ran coverage on there Twitter page in regards to The Complete History of The Howling urging people to go get the book. I sincerely am saddened by this confusing situation and is very upsetting.LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Above are full page coverage on The Complete History of The Howling book that are not brief mentions. These are just a few citations included in my article. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Bonadea I went in and removed the keeps after your advise but you didn’t give me time to do so. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I saw that you had removed three out of your five Keep comments about 20 minutes earlier, so I assumed you simply hadn't noticed the fourth one. (Again, please stop pinging me with the "u" template, thanks.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have approached ABC for advice in regards to all my articles being raised for deletion and one being deleted even thou they fit into wikipedia’s terms & conditions. I’ve included screenshots with my email & the claims made to all of my three articles along with my supporting evidence and citations. Upon receiving an email back from ABC I will post it here and on my other page which has been included for deletion by randykitty. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * avoid trivialising my input into the argument for keeping the article. The Complete History of The Howling paperback coverage I have seen is not from minor references, minor blogs, fanpages or similar non-notability aiding websites and the article does not appear to be promotional to me. saying that  article approved by  should be deleted is calling the editor's approval into question. Philippe Mora wrote the foreword, Bill Forsche wrote editorial and the book has had online support from Dee Wallace, award wining author Susanne Severied, Fangoria & Joe Nimziki. Many who had showed support for the book on Twitter have blue ticks. A blue tick is a verified badge, given to highly sought celebrities and public figures to establish authenticity of identities.
 * Adding to the note about ABC registration, ABC is supported by IPA, ISBA, News Media Association, PPA and as pointed out by LisaHadley2018 is the media industry’s stamp of trust. Sites & magazines with the certification are recognised news avenues. Finally any item that is covered as an individual item like The Complete History of The Howling on more than one medium is not minor coverage.Snakebite 1965 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you snakebite1965. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: This discussion is a near total mess. Not just in terms of formatting (which I tried to salvage somewhat so what we can read through the text without a pain in the neck) but mainly of input. Tons of emotional verbiage repeating the same thing, editors asking other editors to "save" their article (they must be under the illusion that they own the text they create!), and opinions offered without the slightest concern for policy, e.g. "I am using this article in my coursework." The sooner this is closed down, one way or another, the better for everyone involved. -The Gnome (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , appreciated—it worked czar  22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Upon looking at the sources I thought I'd be voting keep under the multiple reviews prong, but the "reviews" are only promotional material. Fails WP:NBOOK and whole thing feels very promotional as opposed to encyclopaedic. Agree with The Gnome that this discussion is a mess and I haven't read any of it. SportingFlyer  talk  19:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This article meets the definition of a WP:COATRACK: the article is supposedly about a book, but almost all the content in the article is about the subject of the book (i.e., the Howling franchise). Vadder (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Complete History of The Howling]] is about the making of the film franchise Vladder somebody hasn’t read the article’s or my topic.LisaHadley2018 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lisa, I did read the article. The article has too much info about the Howling franchise, which I'm guessing is a summary of the information in the book. That's the problem. The article is supposed to be about the book, not the film franchise. I know that may seem like a weird distinction to make, but it's a very important distinction. If the book is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then the article about the book should be about the book (e.g., how the author decided to write the book, how the book got written, how it got published, how reviewers felt about the book, how readers reacted to the book, etc.) The Gary Brandner section, the William Forsche section, and the Howling VII section aren't about the book at all ... they're about The Howling. The Howling III section is basically an excuse to relate some trivia about the Howling to some trivia about the book tour. All of those sections should come out immediately. The problem here is that once those sections come out, there won't be much article left, and people still aren't going to want to keep it. Also, my username is Vadder. Vadder (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, since subject fails notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Also with an AFD so full of sock material even more so. JarrahTree 14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, here are my notes on the references cited in the article:
 * 1 like a pre release announcement
 * 2 ditto
 * 3 ditto
 * 4 a bookseller
 * 5 interview with authors
 * 6 announcement about author attending
 * 7 another pre release blurb
 * 8 interview with authors
 * 9 pre release announcement, gives some background into films
 * 10 author site
 * 11 pre release announcement
 * 12 Gary Brandner interview
 * 13 pre release announcement
 * 14 review of howling III
 * 15 review of howling VII
 * 16 pre release announcement from personal blog
 * 17 review of excerpts sent by author
 * 18 pre release announcements
 * 19 rotton tomatoes on howling IV
 * 20 nothing shown
 * 21 book launch
 * 22 author blurb
 * 23 not listed.
 * none of these are relevant for WP notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Administrative note - I have semiprotected this page due to the rather excessive amounts of sockpuppetry and disruption. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (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.