Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse (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 keep. Missvain (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

is a reliable review, but is the only one (notable author/reviewer, personal blog) and will definitely have opinions. Otherwise not notable. Previously listed for AFD in 2009 and kept as no consensus, the author also does not have a Wikipedia article. Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - I am finding a few places where the book is mentioned, but I am not finding any actual coverage or reviews on the book, outside of the one site mention in the nomination. That one review, alone, is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG, and it does not appear to meet any of the other criteria of WP:NBOOK.  The previous No Consensus decision at the AFD over a decade ago seems to have largely been based on the claims that there are sources, but none were actually provided in the AFD, and I am unable to find any.  The article on the author was deleted by AFD since then, so there is no appropriate place to redirect or merge.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Dayton Daily News review found by Cunard below is good, and the little Star-Telegram blurb is not bad. Those, combined with the one review mentioned in the nomination, are enough to swing this towards a Keep for me.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see a few mentions in passing, but no reliable reviews, no awards, etc. Not all books are notable, and this one doesn't seem to make the cut. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book review notes: "Jason Boyett, author of the Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse (Relevant Books, one sale for $6.99 at relevantstore.com), attempts to inform people about the study of the 'end times' by looking at the lighter side of the apocalyptic milieu. By coupling relevant doctrine with witty anecdotes Boyett unpacks the oft-heavy topic of the end of the world."  The book review notes: "A glossary of the end. A timeline of the end. Potential Antichrist candidates.  You'll find it all in The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Manual for the End of the World by Jason Boyett. ... But the major difference between this book and other apocalyptic tales like the Left Behind book series is The Pocket Guide doesn't take itself, or the apocalypse for that matter, all that seriously."  The book review notes: "This book won't help you toward that doctorate in theology, but it's a pertinent – and often impertinent – reminder of humanity's occasional foolishness." Brief coverage:<ol> <li> The article briefly discusses the book. The article notes: "Small enough to fit in a stocking, this tiny tome is just the thing to have on hand for the holidays. The paperback offers an 'apocalyptionary' in its first chapter and wraps up with the 'armageddon grab-bag,' a chapter filled with "miscellaneous items not long enough for chapters of their own.""</li> <li> The article notes: "This might be the quintessential get-ready-for-Dec. 21, 2012 guide. Jason Boyett writes about potential antichrists, eschatology (apocalyptic theory), and an armageddon grab bag."</li> <li> The article briefly discusses the book. The article notes: "Jason Boyett trumpets that truth as he begins his Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual for the End of the World, published this spring by Relevant Books. It's just the latest of several books and magazine stories that Boyett, a 30-year-old Amarillo native, has written for Relevant Publishing, whose main audience is twentysomethings. So this Pocket Guide, like most of Boyett's work, had to be cool and well, relevant. It is."</li> <li> The article notes: "Boyett seemed pleased with that reaction to his "Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual for the End of the World - after all, Boyett has a lot of fun at the cost of the end-times craze Jenkins and his co-author, Tim LaHaye, have helped create. Then again, he also credits that craze with the interest that has led to his publisher pre-selling 30,000 copies of the book."</li> </li></ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:<ol><li>The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. 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.</li></ol>" The book has received three reviews: Dayton Daily News, Star-News, and Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The book has received additional brief coverage in several other sources. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Every one of the reviews is unusable. Local newspaper reviews of books are not a RS, and the Wired review is trivial.  DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not seeing anything in WP:NBOOK about local newspaper reviews being unusable or unreliable. The Fort Worth Star Telegram has a circulation of 170,000 for a city of 700,000 so is more of a regional source than a local source in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- merely reviewed in a few local papers. These merely prove that it exists, not that it is notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is reviewed in secondary sources, which together seem enough to fulfill WP:GNG to me. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator; thank you for doing a search through newspapers.com, which I do not have access to. I now support a Keep despite being the nominator due to having more SIGCOV in reliable and non-local sources. Is it best to withdraw or let the relist run to a keep? This is my first nomination.  Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 15:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, as there are some delete votes the discussion must play out until it is closed by an admin according to their judgement of when the discussion has been resolved or ebbed out, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I'm still really unsure of how AfD works, I've learned a lot from this one though :) Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 23:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard's sources demonstrating GNG is met. (Oh, and per WP:Wired rule) Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.