Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Confessions


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Confessions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Notability for books. Contested prod. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I am completing this AfD for the IP and am currently neutral. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC) !Voted keep below. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think notability is not an issue (though it needs to be established within the article), but I am concerned that the current plot section constitutes a copyright problem in its level of detail. At the time I am writing this, it is 3,049 words - using an academic estimate of 400 words per page, it would fill almost 8 pages in a standard scholarly book. I believe this crosses the line of acceptable summary, creating a derivative work. See Twin Peaks v. Publications International. The Manual of Style (writing about fiction) notes that "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." WP:PLOT notes that while "a concise plot summary is usually appropriate", the purpose of an article on a piece of fiction is not to retell its plot, but to discuss reception and significance. I believe the summary needs to be cut to a small percentage of its length and balanced with additional material that provides critical commentary; otherwise, there is little transformative about the content, and we are merely saving readers the trouble of buying the book. That we are non-profit is no defense; as WP:NFC points out, we are not only concerned with our own use, but that of our reusers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this concern has broader implications, I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: this page has already been deleted once before because of copyright issues. The article creator has also previously received a one day block for copyright violation. See Contributor_copyright_investigations/Ivankinsman. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, as you can see, I have made a considerable number of contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to know what having 'a one day block for copyright violiation' has to do with this article? It seems to me that this is Wikipedia editing at its worst ... you are using this to imply that anything I write now will be a copyright violation. Am I the only contributor who has crossed over the line in terms of copyright? I have stated very openly that this article is based on my own reading of the novel.

Also, why does Moonriddengirl say that 'the current plot section constitutes a copyright problem in its level of detail'? What copyright problem exists here if it is written in my own words and not 'copy and pasted' from other sources? As I have stated the book is 480 pages long i.e. it is longer than a Thomas Hardy or a Charles Dickens novel and so needs a plot summary of this length.Ivankinsman (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This may explain some of the copyright issues that have arisen before. Copyright consists in more than just the simple language used; it is also bound in the creative ideas. You can, for instance, translate a work from Japanese into English, changing every word used in the original, and still infringe on it; what you create is a "derivative work". Did you read [Twin Peaks v. Publications International, linked above? When you cross the line from a summary used for critical commentary, you move into the land of abridgment, and only the copyright holder has the right to license abridgments. Your summary does not need to be that length. Looking at a couple of [[Wikipedia:Featured article|featured article]]s about books that are even longer, The Well of Loneliness is about a book that is 512 pages long; its plot summary is 598 words. The Time Traveler's Wife is 546 pages long; its plot summary is 755 words. While creating a plot summary that fits within the allowances of the U.S. copyright law that governs us may lose some finer detail, unfortunately it's necessary when the work is not public domain. I've also explained above that the work needs to be transformative. Currently, there is little in this article other than a recounting of the plot. Plots must be discussed as part of an overall critical commentary/analysis of a book. "Transformation" is one of the necessary tests of the fair use doctrine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These are the Wikipedia NBOOK guidelines:
 * 1) . The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2]  published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3]  with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
 * 2) . The book has won a major literary award.
 * 3) . The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * 4) . The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
 * 5) . The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.[6]


 * William Boyd is one of the UK's leading modern novelists. He has won several literary awards. The books covers significant events in the twentieth century (I have added in a section on the Hollywood Blacklist and the Hollywood Ten which are mentioned as historical references in the novel). All of the author's books are considered notable by anyone who is familiar with contemporary fiction.


 * I have also reduced the novel's plot summary to a more reasonable length. Ivankinsman (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I completed the nomination which was started by an IP, and now after taking the time to review the article and references, I feel that there are likely sufficient sources to establish notability: It was a NYTimes bestseller, has a lengthy review in New York magazine, and another review in the LATimes. That said, however, as Moonriddengirl said above, the plot section is still far too long at a current length of 1,775 words.
 * First, stylistic problems: compare this to War and Peace which has 2,250 words summarizing the plot for 1,225 pages. The rough standard of 2 words or less per page of the book holds pretty much steady for all novel articles across the site.
 * Second, copyright problems: as I noted at WT:C, there are at least two court cases which have found a derivative work (such as a summary or abridgement) to be substantial enough to constitute a copyright infringement with a mere 1% of the content of the full work. The current summary is still very close to this length. As Wikipedia's non-free content policy is explicitly more restrictive than the limitations of fair use, I believe the article cannot remain as it is. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Prize winning title. As usual, plot needs a trim and the article should be developed along the guidelines set up by WP:NOVSTY Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2010 (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.