Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leader (novel)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The Leader (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a plot summary without stated sources apart from the book itself and therefore is original research. Cannot find any reviews. Happy to withdraw this nomination if commentary or reviews supporting the text are found. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Alternative History in general and Alternative History featuring a victory (or near-victory, in this case) of the Nazis and their allies is a recognized area of interest for Wikipedia. There is not only a general page on this subject, but numerous individual pages on specific works. his specific book has a new approach, which was not taken by earlier writers - despite this being an often repeated subject. The page can be of use to people who are interested in this field and look for information on Wikipedia - and there are many such. Technically, it might be possible to say that offering a summary of a book's plot by using the book itself as a source would constitute "original research". But if this was enforced strictly, I think there are tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages which will have to be removed, including the pages of many classical works of literature. I think that the absence of commentary or reviews is grounds for demanding an improvement of the page - not for deleting it. Blanche of King&#39;s Lynn (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ? We only keep separate articles when the topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) "demand an improvement" from whom with what sources? Burden of verifiability is on the editor who created the content. "there are tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages which will have to be removed" Yes czar  03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The main argument offered is that writing about a book's plot based on the book itself is "Original Research". I think this is completley pedantic. As I said, you very often find pages about books - including major masterpieces of world literature - where the summary of the plot was made from the book itself. So all these pages on masterpieces of world literature should be removed as "original research"?Blanche of King&#39;s Lynn (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The nom's comment on original research reflects a WP policy—it's fine to use the source itself for descriptive plot summary (at least as of now), but if that's all that exists on the page, then there are no reliable, secondary sources with which to write an article. czar  19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source to have noticed and written in depth about the book. It's not enough for you to have read it and be able to summarise it. Please familiarise yourself with our policies. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  03:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Malinaccier ( talk ) 00:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations to reliable sources are added to the article before the expiration of this discussion. bd2412  T 00:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's been mentioned that there are other "great works" that don't have reliable sources but as per How to write a plot summary those articles should also be here for review unless there was some consensus using WP:IAR, which I'm sure has happened at one point. - Pmedema (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for being unsourced. Oddly, I was trying to remember the title of this book a few days ago, and here it is. The lack of reliable sources both here and elsewhere suggests that it's one of the myriad novels which don't merit their own articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews from reliable sources, which is surprising as WorldCat shows 7 editions held by around 145 libraries, maybe a redirect from the disambiguation page to the author? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. Checked the physical volumes of Book Review Index 2003 and 2004: nada. A redirect to the author's article is sensible, but it's fine to delete first. czar  19:15, 12 August 2017 (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.