Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oxford Virus


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Virus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Debut book; "critically acclaimed" but does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK. No GNews hits (even in Google UK) to establish independent notability. Frank |  talk  16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This, like the Adam Kolczynski article, appears to be discrete advertising by Theforward; there is no basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. G12/Copyvio of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Virus-Adam-Kolczynski/dp/095658800X Additionally, notability has not been established according to the criteria presented at WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Does not appear to have received a literary award; is not the basis for film, other art form, event, or political or religious movement; does not appear to be the subject of educational studies. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the copyvio content (and the speedy tag) in the hope that this discussion can run its course. I think we'll be better off having a completed discussion closed by an impartial admin; otherwise an early close via speedy might mean we deal with this article again in another form very shortly. Frank  |  talk  18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree, thanks for catching that. I went ahead and removed even more copyvio in the article from Amazon and the publisher's website, as well as quotes that lacked a source or citation. Cindamuse (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. The Oxford Virus is a published work which has been critically and independently reviewed. Stylistically, there is nothing about the article to suggest advertising, discrete or blatant. There is more basis for notability than countless other articles accepted to the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk) — 86.161.116.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note. Appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. UK-based author, Veronica Stallwood, has also used Fantastic Fiction as a sole reference. Standards must be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.170.115 (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC) — 86.163.170.115 (talk
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. Kolczynski satisfies the criteria for notability NOT by virtue of being a published author (anyone can self-publish), but by being independently reviewed. In a heavily ring-fenced industry like publishing, 5 independent reviews are not a foregone conclusion. Suggest a 4-week period of grace to see if further citations/references can be found to convince Frank and others of sufficient notability. I repeat: appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. —Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by 109.154.98.226 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — 109.154.98.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Actually, notability is established according to policy and guidelines. An independent review does not establish notability. Neither does inclusion in an online database such as Fantastic Fiction. You may review the notability factors at WP:NBOOK for clarification. Cindamuse (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, substantial independent published reviews are exactly the sources that usually show notability of a book, just as they do for a product, or a performer. They're the best references. The question rather is whether this book has them.   DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. Project guidelines state that a consensus is needed for deletion. The above debate underlines that we're a long way from reaching consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not quite correct the "process proceeds based on community consensus", but community consensus is that it is the quality of the arguments that prevails. One or more individuals may disagree, and a general consensus can still be reached, as I think it has in this case. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. Bejnar: it seems that the burden of responsibility is on you and others to PROVE that Adam Kolczynski is not notable. That would involve you contacting each of the 5 reviewers to find out whether or not a full, published book review (rather than a blurb) is in the pipeline. Removing the Kolczynski article BEFORE this process of due diligence would risk prompting a heated response from the 5 reviewers mentioned in the 'Oxford Virus' article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — 86.161.116.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Your assumption is incorrect. The responsibility to ensure that the article meets criteria for inclusion rests with the author of the article and/or editors that wish to retain the article for whatever reason. Editors opposing deletion need to specifically show how the article meets the criteria, which can be found at WP:NBOOK. Editor(s) making recommendations to keep the article have failed to align their assertions with Wikipedia guidelines. As such, these recommendations to keep the article are insufficient and essentially ineffective. You can find out more about the process of discussing an article nominated for deletion here. Cindamuse (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a non-notable book without coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Armbrust: are you calling The Ealing Times, the Russian London Courier, and Euro Crime unreliable? Are you questioning the professional credibility of author and academic Dr. Catherine Andreyev, as well as author John Curran of HarperCollins? All 5 reviewers have staked either their own, or their publication's reputation on reviewing The Oxford Virus. Few novels by new independent publishers command this level of coverage. That alone makes Kolczynski and his debut novel notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.116.129 (talk)
 * Note: I'm striking out your !vote here because you have already said "don't delete" above. Only one "vote" per person, please, although you are welcome to comment as much as you like. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. While The Ealing Times and Russian London Courier would be considered reliable, the EuroCrime.co.uk website would not be considered reliable as a collection of self-published reviews by one individual, lacking oversight. That said, a search of the archives of these sources reveal NOTHING regarding this book or its author. Puzzling why these sources have been offered, while they do not support any of the claims made in the article. I am recommending deletion of the article due to the lack of notability according to criteria found at WP:NBOOKS, as well as the copyright violation. This article is inappropriate in all regards. Cindamuse (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe the above sources were offered because they are the "reviews" listed at Amazon. Amazon always manages to come up with something. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice for re-creation if sources are developed later to show notability. For now this is a non-notable author and a non-notable book. The book has been published, yes, and it is listed at Amazon, but I could not find a single thing written ABOUT either the book or the author, as required by Wikipedia guidelines. The book was only published this month (13 October 2010 according to Amazon), so it might get some sourcing in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Books are normally shown to be notable by 3rd party independent substantial reviews, though there are peripheral considerations, like demonstrating their presence on a best seller list. Such reviews fit exactly the definition of 3rd party sources for purposes of WP:N, and meet the WP:GNG. I consider the reviews listed in the earlier versions of the article inadequate for the purpose. We do not usually support local papers, whose reviews tend to b e indiscriminate, and certainly not blurbs written by other authors--they normally do it for each other as a favour. I cannot find any usable ones in the usual sources.  When they appear, if they do, there can be an article. And showing the author notable is not enough--there are some famous authors whose every published work is notable, but the criterion for this is usually set very high--and in any case, since this   is his only published book, the author is not notable for Wikipedia purposes.  And furthermore, there is actual proof of non-notability: WorldCat shows its presence in only one library, the British Library--where the publisher is required to deposit it for copyright. .    DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 October 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.