Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekend Special


 * 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 Unfortunately this article and book does not meet WP:NB at this time. Thanks to those who, however unsuccessfully, encouraged the editor to find ways to improve the article. Mike Cline (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Weekend Special

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Critical review of a book by an author with no Wikipedia article. This is either original research or a violation of copyright. Either way, it doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed prod because User:Gharr the original author added hangon tag, obviously contesting it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I very much doubt I have breached “copyright” by producing this article, I think that is an over the top statement.

Since the article on the “Weekend Special” has got references or block quotes on every line, I would be safe to say this is not original research.

However one can debate that the reporting of the author’s words or lecture is an original report since sound seems to have a habit of not hanging around for very long and a person who reports on a subject has not got a photographic memory.

I don’t think reporting something is “original research,” but it may be claimed that it is difficult to “verify.”

Most of the references provided are cited in an accurate way and are “verifiable.”

If I have managed to correctly assert that this is not original research, then I would assume you will put forward more reasonable arguments for deletion of the “Weekend Special.”


 * I (the main author so far) added the hangon tag because a “discussion” was going on about the reason why the Weekend Special should not be scheduled for “speedy deletion” or deletion for that matter.

Gharr (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" seems to no longer exist, so this reference is nonsense. It may refer to the speedy deletion tag removed by the hangon tag I added—but I’m only guessing there, and that is original research. (edit to make sure statement is considered incorrect Gharr (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC) )
 * I most assuredly assure that I do exist. I had to repost the original as it had the wrong title, but a simple check of my contributions and a check of the contribution history of this discussion shows that I posted it at the indicated time. My position is quite simple: either this was original research or a violation of copyright - neither belong in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, book reviews are not encyclopedic and not permitted under WP:MOS. In addition, the three "references" cited at the bottom are an "interpretation of a 'historic talk by the author', a 'direct interview with the author', and the book itself. None of these satisfy any of the criteria of notability mentioned in WP:NB. Promotional blurbs on book covers don't even come close. B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that the article, as currently written is a book review, and not an encyclopedia article. As for copyright violation, attributed quoted text isn't an outright copyright violation.  But in any case, the quoations used not meet Non-free content criteria in my opinion.  The two large quotes consist of quoting the plot, and quoting the author profile from the dust jacket.  As per point 1 of the policy, these large tracts of text can easily be replaced by a plot summary, and an author bio summary written from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no coverage about this book in reliable sources. In particular, I can find no evidence of significant critical coverage such as book reviews.  Aside from that, the article is in part original research as part of the referencing identifies the source as a direct interview with the author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstandings I had here. I think I have covered most of your comments in the points below. Thank you for taking the time to consider this article. I suggest some of the points you cover are "discussed" already and give support to some of your views while suggestions and reasons why Wikipedia may need to reconsider it's stance on new books and authors that do not have large sums of money to launch their books. Wikipedia and making a book are signs of a new era in publishing and you may risk loosing classic literature and rare author comments because of the current rules--and this encouraging reference: "Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."


 * Sorry about previously removing the "", I obviously misunderstood that tag's meaning--I did mention my uncertainty in the edit summary.


 * Thank you Gene93k (talk) for including this article in the "list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions"


 * the point made that "the article, as currently written is a book review:" has some merit I might suppose, but I would have thought the article was more a report or informational style. I have never written book reviews--so I'm not familiar with that style of writing.


 * Ahhh, I get that one now, "B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" is your signature and time stamp to validate who wrote the comment. I thought it was a supporting link for why you thought the article was "original research or a violation of copyright".


 * the point of "original research ...[being a] direct interview with the author" possibly has a point. The interview could belong to me as it might be original research in that I did formulate the questions that led to the report on what was said. If this is the case, then I will delete the offending material and reference.


 * The discussion of "Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria" and "notability of books" has been covered in the "discussion" that resulted from me putting in a tag. While "Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria" was not a topic directly covered, I think it flows in the  "discussion" as a result of the points made on new books and notablitity.

Gharr (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I had written on your talk page, there are several things that need to be considered here, including the application of the notability guideline WP:NB. Since I had originally seen your article while I was on prod patrol, I have seen little added to it to come close to meeting Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. The closing admin will not be checking the talk pages of the participants in this discussion: he/she will look here and at the article itself and judge if there is a consensus for either keeping the article, redirecting it somewhere (where? Your guess is good as mine in this case), or deleting it. Right now, if the article isn't modified to comply with WP:NB and remove the original research, it will be deleted. You need to demonstrate that it has had evidence of coverage by independent reliable sources (click this link to see Wikipedia's definition of the term) - without this, your article is in severe trouble. B.Wind (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I’m sorry, but since other people contributed to the talk page, I feel restricted and can not reproduce their work here—a public space (rather then my talk personal space). I appreciate your rules, but I am tied down on this matter for the moment. If you follow this rule then you would also follow the rule that I had no right to place a.

However I believe I did the right thing by following Wikipedias own instructions: "Place on the page that is tagged for speedy deletion, and immediately give a reason on the associated talk page." Thus the talk page is relevant in my opinion and you can not say “The closing admin will not be checking the talk pages of the participants in this discussion.” I assume here of course that talk page is the associated talk page—but what if I’m wrong???

Alternatively, I can assume that you consider the talk that followed the placement of the tag as finished and this argument is new and different—ignoring all past discussion. I would disagree with this type of assumption, but you seem to have the ability to tell others what the situation is here. The power structure (if there is one) in Wikipedia is still unfamiliar to me.

Gharr (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the views proposed here as to why this book does not belong in Wikipedia may have many merits.

However, I would also note that while I may be the one who has to do additional work to defend the argument of why this book should be included, Wikipedia does have something to say on this matter and this is why I get the feeling Wikipedia is open to being flexible from the following quote:

"Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."

This is also another reason why the talk page that follows on from the placement of the tag should be taken included in this current argument.

Gharr (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that the link on the talk page to which Gharr refers consists of a posting by the author of the book in question (which doesn't help in WP:NB) and essays by Gharr. None of this helps in this discussion, and Gharr is advised to look at several other AfDs so that he/she sees that simply fighting the nomination will not help save the article; reading and taking to heart the comments of the other editors and implementing them would be the most likely way to save the article. Since the beginning of this discussion, there still has been no attempt to demonstrate coverage of the book in reliable sources independent of the book and its author. Until there is, this article will be deleted within the next four days. The only saving grace for this article is that as of this post, only three editors have participated in the discussion. This can change drastically by the end of the weekend. Don't go by "feelings": go by policy and guidelines that well help save your article. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the talk page to be more of a mission statement or a strategic plan that Wikipedia could take on board. Sometimes we have to look outside the rules, even challenge them. This is an unusual time and a lot of material is being published out there. Why waste the energy of authors and yourself when there could be another solution? Why risk loosing articles that may be irreplaceable in the future? You may call it a essay, you may work by the rules but I like to think in business terms. This talk page is not a school essay attempting to get a grade, it goes far beyond that!

--Gharr (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - It appears that B.Wind's advice on what you need to do to prevent this article from deletion has not registered. The arguments you put forth are essentially challenging the guidelines that have been arrived at by consensus.  Notability (books) is the result of community discussion on what the inclusion criteria for books should be.  If you believe that the guidelines are antiquated and need to be changed, you can raise this at the guideline's talk page, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books).  Railing against the guidelines is very unlikely to result in this article being kept as the closing administrator will be weighing the arguments put forth by the various editors based on the current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not even close to meeting WP:NB (if the article's author is either related to - or close friends with - the book's author, there would also be a conflict of interest, and while I cannot say definitively that there is COI, there is definitely the scent of one. The sad part is that if a couple of reviews or articles in reliable sources can be/were found and included in the article, this entry could be saved... but originating editor is either ignoring or not understanding the advice that are given here and on his/her own talk page by the two other established editors who posted above. Gharr refers to the article's talk page as a "mission statement"; I call it (and his/her talk page) egregious violations of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines of behavior. If the author wishes to fight for the sake of fighting without addressing the issues put above in the nomination and putting the article itself in compliance with inclusion guidelines, Wikipedians don't usually have the time to humour him/her; most of us don't even have the patience to play such games in the first place. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, and very confusing to follow what the author or article creator really wanted to achieve. I think it's more advert than whatever "it goes beyond that".  Another example why they should have a minimum of 20 mainspace edits and two weeks before you can create new articles. Tinker before you build.The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable book. Google finds only sales sites, no independent commentary about the book. It is listed with Amazon but at first I thought it wasn't; for some reason it does not turn up in a book search there. This may even be self-published; the publisher's website offers "partnership" arrangements with authors as well as straightforward publishing arrangements. In any case the lack of independent sources disqualifies the book from a Wikipedia listing - quite aside from the very real problems with the style of the article. That would be a matter for rewriting, not deleting, if the book were notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2010 (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.