Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:BK  Heywoodg 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Article meets wikikedia criteria, Hedwoodg raised this issue and bot addressed it.--Mziboy (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hedwoodg had article marked for automatic deletion and article was defended by wikipedia users, as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs)


 * Delete per nom, fails WP:NBOOK, sources generally fail WP:RS. Yunshui (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

*Do not Delete, consider the book in light of South African history and racism against black South Africans. Its notable because Sibanda should not be seen in a vacuum. Maybe we are using too much of a subjective interpretation of wikipedia notability. The factors stated by the founder are supposed to be taken within a context and not in comparative terms. E.g Mandela's books are notable but so is the first white person writing a book in a genre dominated by black writers, even if that book has not garnered literary accolades. The novelty itself demands that wikipedia at least footnote the book and make information available to researchers on black science-fiction world wide. Science fiction is traditionally an old boy's club if I may --- forgive me, if a black African from an underpriviliged background has written a story, I think wikipedia should footnote that. Its a trend, a break, a historic moment. Wikipedia criteria is intended as an inclusive record of all notable footnotes within a subject, thus The Return to Gibraltar, would qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC) --Mziboy (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails the 5 criteria listed in WP:BK, lack of independent reliable sources.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look myself and come up with nothing, but if you can find me a couple of sources (that aren't blogs, forums or user-generated; those I can find in abundance) which show that this book is noted for its author's ethnicity then I'll happily switch to Keep. Yunshui (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete: I agree with Mziboy - if you understand South African history it makes sense. If you don't, then you need a source! that a black person doing something traditionally done by whites is notable given the South African context. Perhaps, this shows a lack of understanding by Yunshui, no disrespect intended. Do we really need a source restating the obvious that racism in South Africa disadvantaged black South Africans or that Jews were persecuted during Nazi Germany...comeone Yunshi! Our cultural bias is an issue here, we are mostly white people looking up our noses at a historyy and context we know little off. If you were a black South African from Soweto looking at Ken Sibanda's science fiction, how would you see it? Lets not be racists in how we evaluate content for wikipedia, this is not the platform for that. Wikipedia is intended to contain notable content given the subjective contexts and history so as to give researchers all the tools they need. --68.54.159.179 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.54.159.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No lack of understanding, merely an adherence to policy. If someone has independently written about, discussed, made a documentary about or otherwise noted the importance of this book in the context of South African history, then it definitely has a place on Wikipedia. However, without such a source, the claim would be original research, which is a no-no here. Instead of berating me for my ignorance, why not try actually find a source to back up your claim? Yunshui (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

68.54.159.179, with all respect, this is NOT about whether racism is notable (should *every* book on the Holocaust, or SA history be included?), or indeed whether subject/story of the book is notable, but whether the BOOK is notable, and whether the BOOK meets WP:BK. It also doesn't mean the book can be mentioned on the authors page. Heywoodg  talk  07:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I DISAGREE Heywoog, I am as familiar with WP:Bk as you are; while every book on the holocaust and South African Racism will not be included on Wikipedia because of WP:BK, books that show a trend written by individuals who are an exception to genre norms qualify under WP: BK. Again, I hold Ph.B in South African history and know for a fact that this is considered exceptional given South African History. Lets keep our ignorance out of the discussion! The fact that you known close to nothing on South Africa does not give you the right to exclude the entry into wikipedia. Again, going back to the founder's intention - Wikipedia, notes the notable encyclopedic information making it readily available to the public and researchers. It is not intended as Heywoodg's personal selection forum! The note on The Return to Gibraltar is relevant and important because of who Ken Sibanda is as a black South African and given black South African under privilege! Again, the entry is intended to make accessible those researching black science fiction; African written science fiction and black South African fiction. Again, you are wrong about the entry of the book on the author's page for the same reasons.

When you previously put the entry for immediate deletion, other users refused on similar grounds! Many people disagree with you --- that the first science fiction epic written by a black South African is not notable and relevant! --Mziboy (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mziboy, Please keep personal insults out of this. We are discussing the book, not me. Thanks.


 * The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] 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] - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
 * The book has won a major literary award. - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
 * 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. - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
 * The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5] - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
 * The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.[6] - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.

Does the book meet one or more of those criteria, and if so, which one? Heywoodg  talk  10:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong!!!!I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE I CAN EXPLAIN THIS WITHOUT INSULTING YOU. YES IT MEETS THE CRITERIA< SPECIFICALLY THE LAST POINT - Again for the tenth time, a black man writing a science fiction book from Apartheid South Africa where science fiction books have been written by white people only is significant, even if Hedwoodg does not think so!!!!!!!!!! You are acting like because you concluded its insignificant that wikipedia should follow.--Mziboy (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Resources and coverage: There are numerous newspapers in both the United States and Spain that have written about the book! see article references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please only !vote once in AfD discussions. I have stricken your first Do not delete/Keep !vote above. Yunshui (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, despite calling me a nazi, racist, and white supremist on your talk page, Mziboy you have also lied about your relationship with Proteus Books. It turns out that you works for them. Well, that is where your abusive email to me came from anyway. Heywoodg   talk  16:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BK. Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't think so, never worked for Proteus Books or Euro Weekly or Montclair Times or any of the mentioned sources. Liar! What abusive email are you talking about.
 * Per the above, please only !vote once. Yunshui (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Against the argument that Sibanda's work is notable because of his ethnicity, I note that the infobox on his page lists his nationality as South African/American. His professional career appears to have largely taken place in the States. This book was published, again, according to its infobox, in the States. There are a fair few authors in Category:African American science fiction writers who might disagree with the claim that his work is unique... Yunshui (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Yunshu:

Please explain in simple English, what you are trying to say above? Ken Sibanda is a black African born science fiction writer; there are very few such writers coming from Apartheid South Africa. Thank you --Mziboy (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Also you repeated the exact same comment on Ken Sibanda deletion page; interesting enough, with the same amount of misinformation!--Mziboy (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject does not meet WP:N. Virtually no reliable sources.  -- Daniel  15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: this AfD was closed after the author of the article blanked it and it was deleted per WP:CSD. He then re-created the article under a different title (The Return to Gibraltar), so I have moved it back to the original title and reopened the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. No indication has been provided that this meets any of the criteria of WP:BK. The argument that this meets #5 is rather contrived. In an age where an African American is President of the USA, it's really nothing special any more that an African writes a science fiction novel. And despite being a huge SF lover myself (my collection spans 36 meters, can't really say how many books), let's keep things in perspective. The first African to write a novel might have been notable. The first African to write an SF novel? No way. What's next: the first African to write a 311 page novel? This argument really is trivial. --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * correction - the incredibly obscure Sibanda is nowhere near the first African writer to write an SF novel; see the SF anthology series Dark Matter and many more since those were published. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought Dark Matter were stories and essays. The claim here is the first "novel". But frankly I'd indeed be amazed that we'd have to wait until 2011 for the first African to write an SF novel... --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * clarify - I meant that you will find in the Dark Matter series a number of writers, some of them African, who have written SF novels long before this fellow came along. As you say, the anthologies themselves consist of stories, excerpts and essays. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, see what you mean. Now the wait is for the first Rwandan to write an SF novel, the first Monegask, etc... :-) And then the first Monegask to write a time-travel short story. Wow, the possibilities are endless! OK, got to go, as you see, there's important work to do now... --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. No credible assertion of notability. Google search on "The Return To Gibraltar" "Ken Sibanda" only shows 70 unique results, mainly social media, press releases, or simple sales links. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to find any acceptable sources on Google platforms, nor with an alternate database search. Fails WP:BK across the board, and sources appear to fail WP:RS. Wikipedia is not in the business of promotion or original research WP:PROMO and WP:NOT, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information WP:N. Accusations in this thread pertaining to racism etc., are specious, without merit and have no relevance on the determination of inclusion. In fact, reliable sources would have to say that rascism is relevant or even related for it to be considered. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable book; we have lots of articles here about notable SF by African writers, writers of the African diaspora, etc.; this is not one of them. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable according to WP:BK. Also lack of independent reliable sources.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:BK. The special pleading above is... unconvincing to say the least. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Please stop voting more than once. The book does rise to the level of a footnote on wikipedia. There is a problem with what we consider as notability here and I think a subjective perspective is being taken. The book is not a bestseller but it deserves a foortnote on wikiepdia. I also dont agree with the criticism on the sources: all sources appear to be independent. He is an emerging notable voice!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.62 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)  Also, if there is another epic written by an African born author, for the benefit of the forum please give name of book and author, as well as where there were born in Africa. Thank you. — 209.212.28.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * reply Nnedi Okorafor is the first one who comes to mind, American-born daughter of Igbo Nigerian parents, who has regularly visited Nigeria since she was very young. There's also the Kenyan Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, author of Wizard of the Crow.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - basically a self-published book (note the president of Proteus books shares the same surname as the author) and clearly not well-promoted or distributed, yet I think it may be notable for the reasons given above and would prefer to see a wait and see attitude than for it to be deleted right now. The only significant award that recognizes science fiction by black authors, The Carl Brandon Parallax Award, has a 1-3 year time delay between publication and award consideration, due to the lack of resources of the society.  Without mass production there is little-to-no chance it would be seriously in the running for any other award.
 * With all due respect to Orange Mike, there are not actually any authors in either of the Dark Matter anthologies who were born in Africa, so far as I can tell, so his statement that there are African authors published in those books who have also published novels is twice incorrect. One author in the series is from Haiti, one from Jamaica, one from Trinidad, but most from America and none from Africa. And Crusio's comment that "In an age where an African American is President of the USA, it's really nothing special any more that an African writes a science fiction novel" is just completely wrong and not based on reality outside of opinion. OrangeMike's reference to an author from Kenya reflects a horrible sort of broad generalization (as though Africa was all one big country) that does not respond to the valid point that it is notable to see an SF novel coming from a black South African. South Africa and Kenya are very different places. To quote the American author OrangeMike seems to want to count as African, Nnedi Okorafor, “Africa is a big diverse place” .  Even white South African sf author Lauren Beukes is a rarity. This article should stay. Netmouse (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment We have two sets of criteria, WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, which serve to distinguish the notable from the non-notable. This book does not fulfill any of the criteria in either set. If Sibanda's book is noted for being a sci-fi book by a black South African then someone, somewhere (outside of this discussion page) would have written about it or in some other way made note of the fact. Since they have not (or at least have not been quoted or used as sources) then under Wikipedia's guidelines it is not notable for being written by a black South African sci-fi writer. Thus, the special pleading arguments advance above are spurious - if he was notable, he would have been noted. Yunshui (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I also don't think we should start including or excluding books based purely on the skin colour of the author. Heywoodg   talk  21:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2011 (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.