Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat


 * 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. While there are reviews which establish that the book exists, it has been pointed out that the reviews have borderline notability under our inclusion criteria. It is possible that the book will generate enough reviews in more mainstream publications to meet our inclusion criteria, and at that point the article can be accepted on Wikipedia. The consensus among established Wikipedia members is that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria - the keep comments from the majority of the IP accounts have not been considered as, despite the accounts tracing to different locations in the world, there is a credible suspicion that they are sockpuppet accounts. I am willing to WP:Userfy the article on request.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources cited for article universally fail WP:RS rules. Having a long list of bad sources (mere personal blogs, the author's/publisher's website, etc.) only fools people who glance at the list into thinking it is notable instead of displaying any true notability.

The write up is essentially a vanity piece quoting the author's own thoughts on his work for long paragraphs, citing reviews he gave to nonnotable blogs. Reviews of just some people off the street who happen to have their own blogs are also referenced. A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources). There is a mention that some more mainstream sources reviewed it favorably, but the only source is the puiblisher's website and not the publications in question, and even if these actually happened they would have to be more than mere mentions to meet the nontrivial coverage requirements.

Most importantly, however, this book dramatically fails the threshold standards as described at NBOOK, in which at a bare minimum any book that wants a Wikipedia article must be present in a dozen or more libraries. Worldcat shows only two libraries in the world have a copy of this publication. It is already several months past its release and therefore extremely unlikely that a number of other libraries will ever stock it. This book therefore fails our most basic criteria for inclusion and must be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

When this entry was previously suggestion for deletion, I was asked to provide sources to support the article, so these I have threaded into it - from reviews and interviews with the author. If these were incorrectly done, I apologize and would appreciate clear advice on how the "clean up" the article to make it perfect for Wikipedia standards. I can't seem to get a clear understanding from Wikipedia instructions as to how I've missed the point.
 * PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. I have put a lot of work into this entry, along with input into other Australian authors, and I believe it is not appropriate to do so for the reasons cited by DreamGuy.
 * I want to learn in order to be able to work with other entries on Wikipedia, especially (as I mentioned) an approach to all Australian authors as these are worthy of some appreciation/love in the "clean up" stakes - but if people like DreamGuy barge in and declare everything is wrong and bears "a long list of bad sources" without precisely explaining why... well, it depresses me and doesn't inspire me to wish to do anything else on Wikipedia.
 * Regarding the "long list of bad sources" which DreamGuy says are "mere personal blogs, the author's/publisher's website, etc." this is NOT correct. Some of the review sources are taken from hard-copy media publications (eg. Farrago, Lip Magazine, Beat magazine), while others come from established and/or respected book review blogs in the genre like SF Book Reviews, The Future Fire, and Verbicide.
 * Only one reference leads to the author's/publisher's website - that "The novel has also received praise from The Age newspaper and ABC Radio National in Australia". This information is also printed on the back of the novel's cover, so I suggest it is appropriate to be cited.
 * With these points in mind I think it's a bit much for DreamGuy to suggest that "only fools people who glance at the list into thinking it is notable instead of displaying any true notability."
 * Where DreamGuy says "The write up is essentially a vanity piece quoting the author's own thoughts on his work for long paragraphs, citing reviews he gave to nonnotable blogs", I would also challenge this.
 * Some of the quotes were from Lip Magazine - an Australian print magazine that also has a blog - while the quotes from Upstart magazine are worthy enough as Upstart is a respected online repository for upcoming journalists in Australia. I believed these kind of interview quotes were informative and enlightening to people interested in the novel itself, as they give background information - most journalistic interviews do a similar thing. But I suppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, so we could remove the author interview quotes if these are deemed unnecessary.
 * DreamGuy's further complaint that "A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources)" is not particularly fair, since the "Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD" tag was thrown onto three of these sources (The Future Fire, Verbicide and Lip Magazine) by DreamGuy him/herself the same day - 11 December 2011 - that Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat ‎was nominated for deletion.
 * I was unaware of the "Wikipedia:NBOOK#Threshold_standards, in which at a bare minimum any book that wants a Wikipedia article must be present in a dozen or more libraries", and appreciate that DreamGuy referred me to it. But I would suggest that strict adhesion to such formalities rules out smaller, independent publishers that may not have the long reach of major publishers - but does that render their work any less satisfactory or "worthy", especially with the way in which the technology world is currently changing, and libraries are not quite as pertinent as they once were?
 * Philosophical diatribes aside (I'm sorry about that!), I do contend that this book has proved more than worthy enough on several levels. Perhaps a rewrite may be in order, as well as (if vital) the removal of author interview quotes, but worthiness? I believe so. But I'm biased - as is, I believe, DreamGuy against it.Alsation23 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses, you two (above). I'm reading too much emotion from both ends with regard to the debate about whether this article is worthy - or not. I believe Alsation23 and DreamGuy make pertinent points. I therefore believe the article should have the author's own thoughts on his work removed to satisfy the concerns of DreamGuy, and have done so in the article. Of course Alsation23 can contest this if not in agreement. I have also removed some review quotes from personal blogs but left in the ones that I believe related to reputable sources. After some research I found that the review attributed to Guy Salvidge, mentioned on the article but linked to the reviewer's personal blog, was also published on the credible website Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus (http://aussiespecficinfocus.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat/); I have therefore corrected this attribution in the article. Re: The threshold standards as described at NBOOK, I note that there is a disclaimer point: 'There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards'. These are a guideline, but not a rule. The review comments have also been amended by myself. Again Alsation23 can challenge this with suitable evidence/information. I do believe we can keep the review comments from print magazines Farrago, Beat and Lip Magazine, and the additional comments from websites Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews and Upstart would appear suitable as they are not simple blogs but news sites. To my mind Verbicide is also attributable. I notice from the publisher's site for the book that the praise from The Age and Radio National is attributable to one person, Patricia Maunder, and have amended this accordingly. This can be removed if inappropriate. Otherwise I believe the article meets notability standards with the references that remain. My vote: KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.236.76.85 (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate we don't bite the newbies, but if this book doesn't even get over Threshhold, does it justify an incubate?  Even if it goes through incubation I don't see how it gets all the way up to satisfying the criteria set out in WP:BOOK.  I appreciate that the original authors have a deep emotional investment in the article (and, presumably, the underlying book), but I have to say in my view it goes down as a delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

KEEP - Mainstream popularity and availability in libraries does not a good book make. Out of interest, have you taken the time to read any of the book DreamGuy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

KEEP - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

KEEP - "This was one of the more memorable books of the year." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.73.28 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)(Forgive me, this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, and I am doing so out of a perceived timely necessity.) It is my opinion that this entry fulfills this guideline.

Part of the 'problem' given in regards to this book being given its own topic was, "A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources)." Being the person who reviewed Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat for The Future Fire, it pains me to say that yes, the Wikipedia page on The Future Fire is, indeed, lacking and does not live up to the guidelines ... however, I have seen nowhere here that says that quotes from places who do not have their own Wikipedia page cannot be used; therefor, even if TFF's own topic page does fall to deletion, I see no reason why this should spell the demise of the entry for Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat, nor even to a link to the review itself rather than to a Wikipedia entry about the site. Unfortunately, you will just have to take my word for it that I am not simply fishing for links to my article ... reject that if you must, but realize that if I were fishing for publicity for TFF, I would likely be doing so by defending TFF's page, not this one. It is still no reason for this book to not have its own page. "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." (Again, Wikipedia's Notability page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.87.92 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm OK with the edits. It reads kind of boring now but I guess DreamGut should be satisfied.Alsation23 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Removed "KEEP" at front because the editor has clearly already voted above. Please do not vote more than once. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The sourcing in the article is insufficient to establish notability, and I am unable to find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm curious what you think defines "notability". As mentioned above we have reviews by print magazines Farrago, Beat and Lip Magazine, and websites Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus and Upstart. Now there's an additional - glowing - review by Elizabeth White: http://www.elizabethawhite.com/2011/12/14/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-by-andrez-bergen-2/ Alsation23 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Reply ' - In terms of Wikipedia, WP:NOTABILITY is what I go by. Perhaps a better term might be "inclusion criteria", but notability is what it is generally known by.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but I've already explored this WP:NOTABILITY link. You will note: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."Alsation23 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that the sourcing in the article meets what I would consider significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with you, but how would you define "significant coverage" in this day and age of disparate media? Inclusion in established newspapers like the New York Times? You may not be aware of this, but a majority of mainstream newspapers these days only review books from mainstream publishers - meaning that independent publishers (and authors) are left out in the cold. And I think very positive reviews from 8 different independent media outlets (as defined above) is significant enough, don't you think? There were more in the article before but these have been removed.Alsation23 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a bright line definition from me, then it isn't happening. There is obviously subjectivity in the evaluation of sources, and of course independent press will have some difficulty getting notice, but I'll reiterate that the sources present now, and previously in the article are insufficient in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

KEEP - Reviewed Wikipedia WP:NOTABILITY and as discussed there is more than enough significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.236.76.85 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage? If so, please provide references for them. Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications do not count. The kind of criteria you seem to be arguing for to establish notability would mean nothing would ever be non-notable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP. More notable than many other books invested enties on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.215.199.135 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why your argument doesn't work. If there are honestly less notable books that have articles on Wikipedia, please point them out and we'll delete them too. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is beside the point, which remains notability. Once again DreamGuy paints down the arguments (above) with the blanket comment "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications do not count", ignoring the fact that some of the sources are PRINT MEDIA (not websites), and some of the websites that are cited - Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus and Upstart - are NOT "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications". If you have an axe to grind, please do it with more class - and better arguments. This is frustrating stuff.Alsation23 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What better argument do you need then the book doesn't meet the bare minimum threshold requirement for having a Wikipedia article, and is very far away from meeting it? I have no axe to grind other than following Wikipedia's policies and preventing articles that are nothing more than spam. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree about the sources being adequate as reported above and apologize for the side step re: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.215.199.135 (talk)

Yeh, I'm sorry I got on my soapbox, too. Frustration speaking! But I still hold that the quotes we have kept are fine given the sources (PRINT media & DECENT websites as outlined in my previous annotation). Thankyou.Alsation23 (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

http://savannahnow.com/share/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book-review#.Tu5XwkpV4vp, St. Augustine Record (St. Augustine, Florida, USA) http://staugustine.com/interact/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book#.Tu5YC0pV4vp, The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, Florida, USA) http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/458407/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book, and Bluffton Today (Bluffton, South Carolina) http://www.blufftontoday.com/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book-review#.Tu5Xu0pV4vp. I think you might agree that these are not "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications".Alsation23 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM: Review by Elizabeth A White is now up on 4 newspapers websites: The Savannah Morning News (Savannah, Georgia, USA)
 * For crying out loud, YES, those ARE mere personal blogs. The URLs even say they are blogs. The review did not appear in ANY of those newspapers. Some sites pride feeds to other blogs within their sites, and that's all those are. If this is the best you have then you are helping prove why this book is completely non-notable. And, in fact, based upon how obvious it is that those are mere personal blogs and yet you are pretending otherwise, I have to wonder if you are purposefully being deceptive to try to keep this article here by hook or by crook. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy, I'm going to apologize here and now for any bad foot we got off on in terms of discussing this subject - I think we could both do with an opportunity to stand back and look at the big picture. I note your comments above; thank you for taking the time to point them out. Contrasting this, I believe Sionk best hit the nail on the head when he suggested that "WP:NBOOK does not require reviews in 'major newspapers', it simply requires that "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."
 * On that basis, the following print media (non-blog) reviews   are all published in reliable, independent sources with editorial control. This source  lists a number of other reviews in published magazines. As Sionk also noted, "Personally I've never read this book or heard about it before now, but I don't think we should be creating extra hurdles to meet 'notability', just because the subject isn't on our personal radar".
 * Any further help and advice you can contribute here will be appreciated. Rather than being "deceptive to try to keep this article here by hook or by crook", I'm honestly trying to gauge exactly how processes work here on Wikipedia, and I also honestly believe this article is worthy. Alsation23 (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - There are several independent, reliable book reviews cited for the article, so it seems to just about meet one of the criteria for WP:BK. Of course it needs substantial improvement, especially because it also uses a number of questionable sources. This is a classic case of 'biting the newbies' because here the newbie specifically asks for advice on how to improve the article. Instead of offering advice or giving the new editor a chance to improve the article, it has been sent straight for deletion! Sionk (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, Sionk!Alsation23 (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BOOK - also is there socking or meat-puppeting going on here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm getting completely confused. Some people are saying delete, some keep; some say the article fulfills WP:BK and others don't. Now there's jargon like "socking or meat-puppeting" - what on earth is that? It would be nice if you gave more information to people not as experienced in Wikipedia, Cameron Scott. In fact this whole experience has been very disillusioning thanks to some people - as Sionk mentioned, I've been asking for help and advice all along, and instead I get the cold shoulder and calls to delete all the work. What's the point? Sorry, but couldn't people be more collaborative and helpful, patient and nurturing with this stuff? What is the desperate need to delete things without investing any effort? I think I might as well give up on Wikipedia here and now. Alsation23 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Don't understand how the article fails WP:BOOK - it meets the criteria The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
 * I've also never heard of meat-puppeting :) Socking is when someone uses multiple WP accounts to pretend they are somebody different (like a sock hand-puppet). Sionk (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Whether the subject meets or fails WP:NBOOK is the entire reason for the deletion nomination. It requires interpretation of the guidelines, and evaluation of the sources for each editor in order for that editor to arrive at a recommendation (often denoted as a "!vote" because it isn't a vote).  Editors can legitimately come to different conclusions.  If it were objective, and black and white, there would be no need for a discussion to arrive at a consensus.
 * With respect to sock and meat puppeting, Sock puppetry provides information about this issue.
 * Those unfamiliar with the deletion process may also want to read Guide to deletion.
 * -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, after a good night's sleep I haven't given up on Wikipedia quite yet! Sorry about the rant yesterday. Now I also understand about sock and meat puppeting (although I'm not sure how it relates to the point here, but fair enough). I hope we can settle this properly, to everyone's satisfaction - though it's quite probable that some people (DreamGuy?) will beg to disagree. Anyway, out of all the above haggling, let me round-up: 
 * I would agree with Sionk's point that the novel "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", as per WP:BK.
 * I disagree with DreamGuy's assertion that these sources are "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications [that] do not count". Some of the sources (Farrago, Beat, Lip Magazine) are PRINT MEDIA publications (ie. not websites), and some of the websites that are cited (Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus, St. Augustine Record, The Florida Times-Union and Upstart) are independent, reputable online sources.
 * If anyone here is prepared to give a few minutes to help out with the article and/or make it more appropriate to Wikipedia, that would be fantastic and a great learning curve for me as well. Thankyou in advance. Alsation23 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Although there has been quite a lot of discussion here, I think that a relisting is appropriate. There was disruption from puppets and one of the main contributors to the discussion was trying to contribute but learning policy from scratch. It seems that the main focus for discussion is, and should be, whether the sources are reliable, and that further focused discussion on that may enable this to reach a clearer consensus. I am also semi-protecting to prevent further puppets.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With regret, I'm going to have to go for Delete. I'll try and explain why as simply as I can. Firstly - the "News" and "Books" searches above - which are a standard litmus test for notability, return nothing. Secondly - the problem with the sources linked in the article are that anyone can (at least in theory) contribute to content and reviews on all of the sites. If you had reviews on news or review websites where only a small number of journalists were allowed to contribute, and their content was peer reviewed (eg: by an editor), that would probably tip it just about in the direction of notable. As it stands today, I'm afraid that doesn't appear to be the case. My recommendation would be to userfy the page and look at getting some reviews in major newspapers. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NBOOK does not require reviews in 'major newspapers', it simply requires that "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."
 * On that basis, the following reviews   are all published in reliable, independent sources with editorial control. This source  lists a number of other reviews in published magazines. Personally I've never read this book or heard about it before now, but I don't think we should be creating extra hurdles to meet 'notability', just because the subject isn't on our personal radar. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * keep Although this AFD is clearly being meat/sock attacked, the book did receive good coverage in book reviews. Some of them are bloggish, but the upstart and beat reviews at least qualifies as an WP:RS with editorial staff. The forces of geek one is obviously problematic, as the book author is an author for that site as well. Faraggo is borderline, as it is a college paper, but I would give it benefit of the doubt. Star journal is an RS URL, but the review itself is a blog. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All the meat puppeting in the world doesn't change the fact that the only sources and reviews fail WP:RS. A few may be borderline (blogs of somewhat mainstream pubs) but I think this still falls short of what would be expected to pass wp:books, no matter how many puppets try to bludgeon the process.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reboot for further discussion, but I do think all the asides about "meat puppeting" detract from this intention. Now that I actually get the gist of what meat puppets means, it's unproven here and a little beside the point. I don't agree that "the only sources and reviews fail WP:RS", especially now I've had a read of that section and it stipulates: "The reliability of a source depends on context." WP:NBOOK also does not require reviews in "major newspapers". I think the problem here is that different people read differing things between the lines of these Wikipedia guidelines, and we can keep going in circles. There may well be major newspaper reviews of this novel - I've only submitted the ones I've found online. Unless we contact the author/publisher directly, we'll never know - but the sources that we do have a re more than appropriate - to reiterate: Some of the sources (Farrago, Beat, Lip Magazine) are PRINT MEDIA publications (ie. not websites), and some of the websites that are cited (Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus, St. Augustine Record, The Florida Times-Union and Upstart) are independent, reputable online sources. Can we try to be proactive here instead of focusing on puppetry and deletion? I'd really, really appreciate more help. If this fails, I'm giving up on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway, to people like Sionk and Gaijin42. Alsation23 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Mention (brief) at the authors article is sufficient, given the lack of notable reviews. We would need a review from a source which itself is notable, such as a major author or magazine (either that has an article, or is sourced heavily on WP, or appears to deserve an article). the refs provided all fall below that threshhold. it can be expanded within his article if/when notable reviews/mentions appear. If a strong fan base or cabal (in this case, the real world WP:Walled garden of small press publishing) comes to an article or an AFD, does their best to show notability, and cannot provide more than what we have here, then its definitely not notable. like asking a chef to give you his best dish: if it fails, they have no excuse. please note: the publisher, Another Sky Press, had an article which was deleted for lack of notability (a sincerely motivated Vanity press), at Articles for deletion/Another Sky Press.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mercurywoodrose, you are incorrect about Another Sky Press being a Vanity press which, according to the link you give here, is "a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense." In the interviews/articles I have read about the publisher while researching this article, and having just looked over their website again just now, it is quite clear that they are an independent publisher but certainly NOT a Vanity press. There's absolutely no mention of taking money from authors to publish their books - unless you're privy to information I haven't comes across? If so, please share. Otherwise it would seem to detract from the issue here, which is, I thought what Tigershark noted when s/he relisted this debate: "discussion is, and should be, whether the sources are reliable, and that further focused discussion on that may enable this to reach a clearer consensus." Again we boil down to the perception of notability of the sources we have. While I agree there is no major newspaper publication review (at least that I have found while researching the article), in this day and age this would not surprise me as major newspapers review books from major publishing houses as these pay for advertizing at said newspapers. Independents are rarely covered. That said, we have an array of media coverage as previously discussed (above) and it's this that we should look at rather than meat puppets or vanity press. We already have a few differences of opinion, but it would be great to stay on topic. Alsation23 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but from my point of view, I have nothing personal against you whatsoever, and it would be sad if you abandoned Wikipedia because of this. More specifically, I would only ever claim that an article is not notable now or not notable yet. Hence the more constructive suggestion of moving the page into your userspace, where it will be preserved and still accessible, and work on sources that will prove beyond any doubt to most people here that the book is notable. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, they are not a vanity press, poor wording on my part. What i meant to say is their business model, an honor system where they are willing to give away their books online for free (payment optional), is highly admirable, but means that they have no commitment to making money from their books. That, unfortunately, in our capitalist world, is one of the criteria for notability: sales. How does that relate to this title? If the book is only notable for online reviews, and we cannot measure its success by paid downloads, its that much harder to establish notability. What would make this book notable is if it got press for selling copies despite being available for free, or if the book/author became big enough to switch to a larger publisher (not that i want that)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely put, Mercurywoodrose. Apologies for coming down a little hard on you! ;-) Alsation23 (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ritchie. I appreciate the comment/advice. Alsation23 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To wrap up - on subject - I think Sionk best hit the nail on the head (above):
 * "WP:NBOOK does not require reviews in 'major newspapers', it simply requires that "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."
 * On that basis, the following reviews   are all published in reliable, independent sources with editorial control. This source  lists a number of other reviews in published magazines. Personally I've never read this book or heard about it before now, but I don't think we should be creating extra hurdles to meet 'notability', just because the subject isn't on our personal radar." Alsation23 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect that you feel strongly about the article, but it is neither necessary nor desirable to have someone debate every comment made. I have faith that the closing admin will be able to figure out which "arguments" are weak or strong without someone else picking every single one of them apart.   Dennis Brown (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it bludgeoning but trying to put a light on things that may otherwise be unclear to new people wading through this - like yourself, Dennis. It's also undesirable to have someone throw the focus on "meat puppets" rather than the issue of sources, but to each their own. To be honest I think I've had enough of the cantankerous approach of some people (including my own) in this season to be jolly. Merry Christmas, mates. If you choose to delete this article, so be it. Then I'm personally finished with Wikipedia as well, but c'est la vie. Alsation23 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 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.