Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unseen (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Unseen (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only one non-trivial review found, WP:BKCRIT requires two. Cxbrx (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even searching with the other title of "The Gore," I can't turn up any additional RS coverage of this book. Since the article notes that it was not successful, that doesn't seem too surprising. Maybe it can be folded into the author's page or a list of his works. ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep per the second source linked below -- thanks for finding that. I've never heard of ISFDB so I only searched some newspapers and journals that my library subscribes to. ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close. As Casey Stengel said, "Can't anybody here play this game?". ISFDB alone shows three additional reviews of this book. A recent ebook edition quotes a Yankee magazine review on its "cover"; another retailer page quotes a review from Vermont Life. The novel was reprinted under its alternate title by the University Press of New England (a consortium including, inter alia, Dartmouth and Brandeis, another clear indicator of notability. There's also a review in Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual 1991. Ramsey Campbell's best-of-the-year 1990 volume cited the novel as a "noteworthy title". It's well-established that cursory Google searches are utterly inadequate in turning up book reviews and similar coverage, especially for pre-internet publications. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I agree that searching Google is not sufficient, which is why I searched newspapers.com and found a review, which I added to the article.  I'm not so sure that ISFDB is WP:RS because, like Wikipedia itself, ISFDB is a volunteer effort and Wikipedia itself is not WP:RS, see WPNOTRS.  Good to know that Vermont Life and Yankee may have reviewed it, it would be best to find the actual reviews, be sure that they meet the requirements of a non-trivial mention and add them to the article.  I'll see if I can find back issues of Vermont Life and Yankee online.  I'm not sure that Ramsey Campbell's best-of-year 1990 citation as a noteworthy title counts as a review, it seems like a trivial mention, is there an online copy of Campbell's citation somewhere so that we can take a look? I realize not all things are online, though it would be helpful if this source was available.  I'm all for keeping the article if it meets WP:BKCRIT and we can find a second review in a WP:RS source.  04:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found a second review in "Vermont Life". Thanks for the tip.  I'll see about adding it to the article shortly.  I searched Masterfile, which is "a database provided by EBSCO Information Services" and Masterfile has only bibliographic info for Yankee from 1984 and full text from 1997.  I did not find a reference for this book in Masterfile.  There was a 1998 and a 1999 review for two other Citro books.  I was not able to find an online archive of Yankee for 1990.  Cxbrx (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the article with the Vermont Life reference. I think the review is rather short and might not meet the definition of what is needed for WP:BKCRIT, but I'm willing to go with what we have.  At this point, I'd vote "Meh".  I don't think this book is particularly notable and it barely meets the requirements, but if others feel it is a keep, then I'm fine with that.  Many thanks again to User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz for the tips.  I do spend quite a bit of effort poking around for sources before suggesting a delete and look to the delete process as a way to drum up further resources once I've hit a dead end.  The article had a notability tag since October 2019 and had no citations, so it seemed questionable.  I'm not sure what the next step is here, whether I withdraw this or whether and admin has to close it, so I'd appreciate guidance.  Thanks again to everyone who took a look!  Cxbrx (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has multiple independent reviews, two of which are mentioned in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2020 (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.