Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oneironauts


 * 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 redirect to Paul Kalas. Consensus is that the book should be covered at the author's page. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Oneironauts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A self-published book on a fringe topic with no independent references, created by an author with a likely COI. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO by apparent undeclared WP:COI editor. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the COI declaration and the subsequent discussion below, changing !vote to Redirect to Paul Kalas, with the understanding that the author follows WP:COI guidelines and works with other editors to add material to personal page. Bakazaka (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The author is a public/historic figure in science with an ongoing publication record.  The book is a new addition to this publication record and involves the history of science pertaining to discoveries made with the Hubble Space Telescope.  The book is being reviewed and independent references/response will be added.  Financial COI's have been minimized.Pkalas (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first-hand knowledge of the financial COI suggests a direct connection. Are you the book's author? Bakazaka (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am the author. I added the book to my publication list for Paul Kalas, which also has links to my other publications.  I have a colleague with a similar wikipedia entry for his book (Physics_for_Future_Presidents) and used it as an example.  Pkalas (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case you need to follow Conflict of Interest policy on disclosure and editing. That doesn't mean you can't edit, just that you must disclose your connections, for example on the talk pages of articles about you or your work that you edit, and that you should follow a few extra steps when creating or editing articles about yourself. I have gone ahead and placed a connected contributor notice on the talk page for this article. Bakazaka (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Next time I edit I will write that I am a connected contributor. Pkalas (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is more information needed? I satisfy WP:PROFTEST and notability.  The book concerns the history of how I acquired the Hubble Space Telescope image of the planetary system around Fomalhaut -- this image appeared on the front cover of the New York Times (2008) and is displayed at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.   Therefore my work is notable (not fringe) because it is highly visible publicly (as opposed to a narrow, specialized academic topic) and impactful in the history of discovering planets outside the solar system.  An independent and unsolicited reviewer posted on 18-minute book review on YouTube.  Someone could add this review to the "Reception" portion of the page.  A copy of the book has also been requested (and provided) to a reviewer in a journal that publishes book reviews which would also go to the "Reception" portion of the page (once the review is published).  The book description is objective and the tone is neutral. Pkalas (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for Deletion discussions usually take a week or more, giving other editors time to chime in. Repeated voting by the same user will be taken into account by the editor who closes the discussion. Since the article is about a book and not a person, Notability (books) is a relevant guideline. Note the threshold standards as well as the notability guidelines. For example, if the book has not been catalogued by a national library, it might be excluded simply on those grounds. Other policies and guidelines may apply as well. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, more is needed (but almost certainly doesn't exist). The thesis of the book seems to be that your dreams predict the future, which is clearly a WP:FRINGE topic.  A single (unlinked) Youtube review is certainly not enough to meet WP:NBOOK. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you can comment several times on an AfD discussion, however you can only post "keep" once. Also, I do need to note that notability is not inherited, which essentially means that in order for the book to have its own page it will have to have enough sourcing to establish how it meets WP:NBOOK and is independently notable of yourself. As far as reviews go, Wikipedia is pretty picky. Reviews published in self-published sources (SPS) like YouTube will almost always be seen as non-reliable sources on Wikipedia unless the SPS (in this case the YouTube channel hosting the review) is cited frequently enough in independent, reliable sources to be seen as a reliable source itself. It's incredibly rare for a SPS to gain this type of recognition, to be honest, which is why I never really bother using them in articles I'm trying to create or improve. The journal could be seen as reliable depending on its editorial oversight and status. Peer-reviewed journals are almost always seen as reliable sources on here. However that would only be one source at this point in time and you'd need more than this to really establish notability. Sometimes, if the sources make a claim of overwhelming notability such as the book winning a major award, 1-2 sources are enough but in the vast majority of cases book articles will need at least 3-4 to really pass NBOOK. The catch of the 1-2 sources part of NBOOK is that if there is that major of a claim to notability for the book, there will almost certainly be far more coverage out there (even if not on the Internet) to establish notability, making the 1-2 source point moot.
 * Since one was used in the article, e-commerce sites like Amazon are not seen as reliable sources because their primary goal is to sell you something. Its use can also make the page seem promotional -even if this is unintended by yourself - and can come across as Wikipedia endorsing the site or product. If you're just looking to back up publisher data, I'd recommend WorldCat. In any case, at this point I'd suggest that this be merged and summarized on your article given the lack of sourcing. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if the book is primarily about your experiences and discovery, then covering this in your article would make sense since then it could be used to expand the article to contain more information about yourself. Since there's a conflict of interest here, I'd recommend that you work with another editor on this since it goes beyond the addition of non-controversial info (ie, stuff that would be seen as relatively minor to adding whole paragraphs of content.) ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * MoveThis book should really be listed on the author page and not have its own separate entry. As it stands it does not have enough information to live up to WP:NB. You can move most of the information on to the author page under Published Works. Auldhouse (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional information. I was using my colleague’s book Physics_for_Future_Presidents as a template.  It seemed to me that this apppeared on Wikipedia in 2014 because it represented a portion of his scholarly work, not because it was notable.   Note that it was published in 2008 — the book and the book reviews were six years out of date by 2014.  In the last 10 years there are no other references to the book, which is not consistent with notability.  Nevertheless, it represents his writing and thinking.  In my case, it seems I created a book page too early instead of too late.  Nevertheless, the book represents my writing and thinking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkalas (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No reviews? Redirect to the author and cover summary style. Needs significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources to warrant a standalone article. (?) czar  19:34, 16 September 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.