Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windswept House: A Vatican 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. --MuZemike 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Windswept House: A Vatican Novel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable crank roman a clef by a marginal novelist, with no critical attention. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Critical attention can be found here . Minimally, merge and redirect to the author. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Orangemike, and redirect to Malachi Martin. Unfortunately this piece and its "key" posted on traditio serves as a lightning rod for kooks who think it is a true story and inject it as source material into BLP's mentioned in the "Key".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Malachi Martin. I wasn't able to find anything that shows that this book has been reviewed by reliable sources, the key point being "reliable". There's a lot of coverage in a specific set of websites but they aren't generally considered to be notable or reliable enough to be a reliable source. Redirecting to the author should be a good compromise on this since most of what I did find focused on the author just as much if not more than the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Changing vote to keep per sources found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep. The main motive for it submission for removal is purely based on POV. Comments like "kooks" and "marginal novelist" do nothing to give the impression that a balanced thought has been mustard to bolster a "delete" argument. An advisor to THREE popes surely has to the credentials to have a page on Wikipedia, especially when the book is reported to contain 80% fact. Forbes Magazine: "No spiritual journey is complete with a Vatican page-turner by Malachi Martin" Reviews. Whilst you may need agree with his text, I am sure that you agree that this is not the motive for a deletion --Anthony of the Desert (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep NYT Chicago Tribune  (paywall, but reprinted in the Spartanburg Herald Journal )  Publishers Weekly  Kirkus Reviews  86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The NYT article is repeated by two editors. The Forbes quote is unsupported by Anthony, although it may indeed be verifiable. Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews review almost every book that's published. Anthony, Martin does have his own article. This is the book we're talking about, not the author. Despite your statement, Anthony, about "motive", you just recently tried to restore the offensive and policy non-compliant material about who each character equates to in real life (according to the author and whatever sources support the "key"). Unfortunately, the notability guideline for having a book article at Wikipedia is very low. The only criterion this particular book could fit into is the reviews, and it's a close call. I would exclude Kirkus and PW for the reason stated above, and we are left with the Times and the Spartunburg papers (can't address the Forbes reference because I haven't seen the review, if indeed it's a review). I don't think the coverage is pervasive enough or of significant depth to include the book. I remind everyone that it is only a guideline and can be overridden by consensus: "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book" and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say that Publishers Weekly reviews a small fraction of published books. According to our own article they review approximately 7000 books per year, while the United States alone publishes nearly 300 000 titles per year. Pburka (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I was speaking mostly anecdotally and I should have checked my "facts". However, after reading the Book reviews section of our article on PW, it is probably not the best source to establish notability for a book. For example, the reviews are anonymous and short (as is the one for this book) - hardly in-depth. The reviewers are paid a small fee to produce a review. One reviewer said her reviews were altered for mysterious reasons. I would give a PW review little weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I did try to restore the "offensive" material as I felt that as it was referenced, the reader could make their own conclussions as to its validity and authenticity. As it turned out to be "non-compliant material", I didn't pursue the issue. The issue here is yet another example of despotic "Guardians of the Wikipedia realm" who try to take a sythe to any page that they do not care for, based solely on POV. Maybe they should follow a more democratic road and discuss issues and try to amend them via the 'talkpage' rather going straight for deletion. --Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Without addressing your sillier points, I would just say that sometimes the spirit and/or the letter of WP:BLPREMOVE requires removal first and discussion after. By the way, has anyone ever taken traditio.com to WP:RSN?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably needs to go there, the site is little more than a glorified blog, hosted by a person claiming to be a priest and posting anonymosly as "Father Moderator". I suppose it could be reliable when discussing antisemitism among sedevacantists or things of that nature.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP There are thousands of articles about books (less of interest or value) than this one, so the point of deleting this can only by subjective. He was an important author in catholicism at the end of the XXth century.  This book is his last and most important one.  It deals with the infiltration of the roman catholic church by outside ennemies in order to destroy it, an is based on facts.  The article should be expanded, not deleted.--Stijn Calle (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment, this discussion is about this book, not thousands of other articles. Martin was an important author to maybe a few fringe groups, but not Catholicism as a whole; this book is not even particularly well-written for him and it is a novel, Stijn, you need to remember that when it comes to BLP.  Persinally, Martin's earlier works were better before he reinvented himself as the "Conspiracy Secret Agent Attacked by Satan disguised as a Pitbull sent by a 45thDegree Mason" Priest.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The policy Mike is talking about is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While there are enough sources to make me change my vote from redirect, saying that things should be kept because worse articles exist or because it's important (WP:ITSIMPORTANT) aren't good arguments for it to be kept. Odds are that this will be kept, but I want you to understand that you need to back up your opinion with things along the lines of WP:NBOOK. Things aren't decided on a vote, but on the strengths of the arguments given. I've seen pages deleted with just one "delete" opinion and pages kept on that same premise, so believe me when I say that the amount of opinions in either direction does not sway the admins.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.