Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Constant Outsider (2nd nomination)


 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Constant Outsider
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN autobiography published through a vanity press, no sources. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Self published, and I can't find any reliable sources via Google that would provide notability or help this pass WP:BK. Bláthnaid   talk  19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Bláthnaid   talk  19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete A google search does in fact come up with many results, one of them being the book's official site, http://www.TheConstantOutsider.com. The author has been interviewed more than once. One of the interviews was actually broadcasted on a Boston public access channel, which millions of people have access to. The book is available on many well known sites, such as BarnesAndNobel.com, and Amazon.com. --Kcgreatfox (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete no references in WP:RS that we can access. apart from the radio interview above on a local station. Sticky Parkin 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Two articles regarding the release of the book were published in the Middleboro Gazette. One can be found here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/PUB04/806260397. I have just added a link to this newspaper article to the Wikipedia article. I should also mention that the book is currently in the process of being reviewed by http://www.readerviews.com, and that review should be released within the next few days.--Kcgreatfox (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, the problem is that the notability guidelines in Notability (books) says The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, and one or even two is a stretch to meet multiple. I personally searched a database that supposedly has full text on 12 Boston area newspapers and came up with nothing.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete book has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial reviews/articles/etc. Readerviews.com is a peer-reviewing site whose reviewers are unpaid amateur volunteers and to which any book can be submitted. Any book can have a website for a small amount of money.  Any book with an ISBN can get itself listed on Amazon.  A newspaper review about a local person and his self-published autobiography is not enough to satisfy WP:N, and nor is a piece on public access TV.  It may well be an interesting read, and I hope it does well, but at present it is simply not notable.  Ka renjc 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is true that Readerviews.com will review any book for a fee, but they will occasionally review a book for free if, after looking over it, they think it is a very good book. They agreed to do a free review for this book, which is not a privilege every book receives. Also, the fact that the book has a website is not the point I was making. I was arguing that there are legitimate search results that appear when the book is searched in google, including a professionally made site. Also, getting a spot on a public access channel in Boston is much more significant than getting a spot on a public access channel in a small town, due to the huge number of potential viewers. Many authors do not get televised publicity of any kind--Kcgreatfox (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An interview on public access channel, regardless of locale, is not acceptable by itself for satisfying WP:BK. PEG channels are required by federal law to accept any programming from any member of the community they serve with no stipulations on content. All programs are essentially self published by amateurs, with content at the discretion of their producer and are not peer-reviewed, fact checked, or verified in any way, except in to ensure that the video quality is of a high enough technical standard for broadcasting. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete, I believe that two newspaper articles, an upcoming review by a well known website, a radio interview, and a television interview is enough to make this a valid book to have an article for. The author is currently in the process of scheduling more interviews, so the publicity of the book and its author is continuing to grow. The book has also been reviewed by psychologist Izzy Kalman, author of Bullies to Buddies. He also discusses the book in one of his newsletters. I will locate this newsletter, and include it in the article. Hopefully this will add enough credibility to resolve this debate.--Kcgreatfox (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Kcgreatfox, you've now made a bold text "vote" three times in this debate. It's usual at AfD to express your opinion only as a comment after you've stated your initial stance re keep/merge/delete/whatever in bold text.  You're the article's creator, sole contributor and defender, and I do respect your obvious enthusiasm for the book itself - and I send my good wishes for its success - but this is not about whether the book is any good, or whether it is being enthusiastically promoted at a local level and on an amateur review website, but about whether it has achieved WP:notability per the guidelines, and I cannot see that it has, even stretching the criteria to their utmost.  Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting new creative work by unknown authors, but a place where notability is recorded once it has happened.   Ka renjc 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I apologize for voting 3 times. I did not realize that every time I stated "do not delete" I was placing a vote, having never had to defend an article this fiercely before. I strongly believe that there is more than enough credibility to this article. I see no harm in leaving it up, as it is a real book that has been mentioned in real newspapers, websites, and talk shows, but it is clear that quite a few people are determined to see this article deleted. I've already made every point that I can, and feel the article should be left active. It is incredible to me that everyone disregards every single bit of credibility I add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcgreatfox (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to keep the contributions clear, I've struck through the redundant !votes by Kcgreatfox. Deor (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Meets none of the criteria of WP:BK. Deor (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BK, no evidence of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (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.