Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade of Aquitaine


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Wade of Aquitaine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article references either lack independence or do not have sufficient breadth of readership (Denver Post) to substantiate a notability claim. I suspect that this article may have been written by someone such as a publisher or marketer (or the book's author?) with a COI, and the paucity of adequate references reflect this. Discussion of the book in independent reliable sources appears to be scarce. Book has won no literary awards and has not been reviewed in a major national newspaper. KDS4444 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

But the Denver Post is an independent source, with information about the novels. The lunacon.org source is also independent and has information about the book's author. The novel spent 20 weeks on the Amazon Kindle Bestseller List too. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The lunacon.org identifies the author as one of several presenters at a conference— this is not the same thing as a published independent reliable source, it is only a conference web page with unknown readership and no evidence of editorial oversight; the Denver Post article is independent, yes, but as I already said, I don't think it has the breath of readership to indicate that the books it reviews are going to qualify as notable here on Wikipedia; lastly, having appeared on a bestseller list, while a good start, is not enough to support this notability claim: where was it on this list? Is it a list of fictional books sold or a list of all books sold?  How long is the list?  If the list is of 200 top fiction books, then being there for 20 weeks at position 187 starts to sound less convincing.  If the book was truly notable, there should be ample discussion of it in the book reviews of multiple major national papers— I was not able to find any such discussion.  KDS4444 (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the rules for substantiating Wikipedia articles. There are five sources for the article and five external pages which back up what the article says. I have also quoted from these sources to ensure that the article remains valid.SFrancis1608 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Denver Post picked up their story from Newsday's story on 2/13/2008, about it being one of the first Kindle books: circulation 437,000 Daily 495,000 Sunday. The book was top five on Kindle in action, adventure and war too SFrancis1608 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Denver Post has a readership of 1.2 million. I think you should take a look at the Wikipedia page for the Denver Post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denver_Post, which will give you more information about how popular the series is. SFrancis1608 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I also have physical evidence that supports the validity of this article and the book series. Can we provide details of these sources as back up for a start? SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. References include a wiki, an article with a one two sentence mention of this book, the web site of a company which promotes books on behalf of authors, the web site of a company selling the book, etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

But you're forgetting the Denver post article, which has a following of 1.2 million. The article is written in a neutral tone SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. That was that article which I said had a one sentence mention of the book, though checking now I see that actually two of the five sentences about Ben Parris are about Wade of Aquitaine, so I am correcting my post above. However, by no stretch of the imagination is that substantial coverage. As for being "written in a neutral tone", that is totally irrelevant to what I wrote above, which was about lack of evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you let me know what is wrong with the article specifically? How can I fix it? SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessarily a question of "fixing"— notability is something which either is or is not, not something which one can fix by changing the presentation of existing information. The book may become notable in the future— that is always a possibility.  But that does not mean that there is evidence for its notability right now.  KDS4444 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If notability and substantial coverage vis a vis number of lines in a major paper is what you're concerned about, the entire Newsday story I cited--a full page-- was devoted to this article. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just searched the Newsday website (you did not provide a link) but could find no evidence of their having written a piece on this book, though even if I had, "Newsday" appears to be only a local Long Island publication. KDS4444 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Check that, I just did a second search and found the reference. It is titled "Cool2know", and here is the link.  What I was not able to determine, however, without paying for access, is whether or not the article even mentions the book.  The abstract does not, and the title does not suggest that it does. I am willing to grant (sight unseen) that the article does mention the book somewhere— that alone does not constitute substantive coverage of it.  If the article were about the book, and if the article were published in a newspaper with broad circulation (I recant my previous assessment of the Denver Post, which likely does have readership breadth), and if there were at least two such articles in existence, a notability claim might stand. KDS4444 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - this reads like a typical promo piece by somebody with strong affiliation with the books. No evidence that there is any significant notability here. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 19:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There's limited evidence of notability. The book was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date.  I put a delete vote on the author's article as well, since without the book being notable, there's not much else in the media coverage to suggest sufficient notability.  Perhaps when the sequel comes out that will bring new interest in his work. Timtempleton (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2017 (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.