Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeval


 * 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. Sr13 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeval

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable novel released in July, written by an author whose article was speedy-deleted last night. It's listed on Amazon, but is printed by BookSurge Publishing, a self-publishing house affiliated with Amazon. A Google search for the author's name comes up blank. Searches for the book itself on Google come up entirely blank. There are no reviews, nor are there reliable sources. I explained this to the article creator and another editor on the article talk page, and suggested they produce sources ASAP, but the PROD tag was removed amid some edits that did nothing to convey notability, so I bring here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reviews/analysis/criticisms etc that would give notability Corpx 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. Without any verification or reliable sources, the article in question should be deleted. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Buck  ets  ofg  03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because Amazon.com has two reviews on the book, I think a plot summary and a major character section is fine.  I deleted sections that couldn't be verified that were posted by the creator (who is a questionable recourse).  Concerning the Google search: most books from self-publishing houses typically take 2-3 weeks to come up in search engines.  This is not unusual for something as new as this title.  The fact that the article is too new to have any other resources besides the ones provided in the "see also" section, and the fact that it was published through a self-publishing house, shouldn't be held against the title. Geeky Randy 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazon reviews are reader-provided, and are not produced under any kind of editorial scrutiny. Please, as I pointed out on the talk page, take a look at the notability guideline for books, which lists five criteria - none of which are met by this book. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N not satisfied by this unencyclopedic book review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Targeman 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Please don't take offense to the following because I don't mean it as an insult. I'm a very busy person and am unfamiliar with a lot of computer stuff.  Therefore, taking the time to create and add this article was a lot of work for me.  I would've figured you people would be flattered to have another article added to this site.  Instead, I feel like I'm being dictated by people who are browsing the “Articles for deletion” category and have likely not even read the book.  On top of that, the only person who does agree with me suspects I somehow know the author.  I'd like to add that this accusation isn't true either.  As I have said before, I found this novel through the recommendation of a mutual aquainense who actually hasn't even finished the book.  I have never met or spoke with Schultz.  Also, you people won't even edit the article to make it satisfactory.  All you suggest (some of you with less than a sentence) to completely destroy the whole article.  Please give it a couple weeks.  The book was released on July 5.  What do you expect?  Again, I apologize if I sound rude.  YevalPro 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * then the thing to do is to keep a copy of the article, expand it when there are significant published reviews in reliable sources, and ask at Deletion Review whether there is enough to justify the resubmission. Whoever writes the article, the book has to be recognized as important first. DGG (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So what exactly qualifies as “important”. While we’re having a discussion on qualifications, let me take this opportunity to quote from the guideline section Tony Fox linked to this discussion: “It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception”.  I don’t mean to sound irate, and I’m not by the way, I just don’t understand why the rules for this are so damned strict.  It is a book.  You people let Cleveland steamer, felching and rusty trombone have an article, yet you criticizes and try to delete a controversial novel that makes a statement about graphic violence in America.  This is a joke.  Again, my sincere apologies for acting so confrontational about the subject. YevalPro 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No judgment is being made on the quality or the content of the book, but on the level of notability it has achieved. At this point, it fails that test.  This book is one of many on earth.  What makes it important?  Montco 05:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Important? Well, let’s see.  The book is important to me because I agree with its message, its an interesting and original subject, and frankly I can relate to a lot of what happens throughout the story.  But I’m sure that’s not what you meant when asking about its importance.  The best answer I can give you is that it’s a book that exists.  People have read it.  Without the article, Wikipedia is incomplete. YevalPro 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As DGG states above, when the book's notability can be verified, when it's been reviewed by multiple reliable sources, then perhaps it will merit an article. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything in existence; if it was, we'd have ten million articles, eight million of which would be spam, attack pages, and high-school garage bands, in my experience. The policy of verifiability must be met. Reliable sources must be provided to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Stanton Samenow, for example? He has an article that hasn't been picked on and also doesn't have a single source that's been cited.  Why does he get a page?  He is just one of many American psychiatrists, just like "Yeval" is one of many books.  Also, comparing this book to "spam", "attack pages", and "high-school garage bands" is an insult.  Somebody has written and published a great book.  Don't discredit it because it's self-published.  With all do respect, you haven't read it.  In fact, I'm sure everybody who voted "delete" hasn't read it.  It's sold at Amazon.com, "one of the first major companies to sell goods over the Internet" according to Wikipedia itself.  That's a pretty reliable source.  Amazon.com doesn't sell CDs by "high-school garage bands".  Geeky Randy 04:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; basically, it doesn't really matter what other articles are out there, as this discussion is about THIS article. Stanton Samenow may be a bad example, I should note; he has a number of published books (at least two of them through Times Books) and papers published in major journals; the article also asserts notability, through his work being used on The Sopranos. The article does need sourcing, and I'll tag it as such. I did not compare this book to those other types of articles; I simply said that without the notability requirements, that's what Wikipedia would turn into. Amazon does, in fact, sell many self-published books and CDs that fail to meet notability guidelines. Once again, what you and the other editor defending this article must do to ensure that it's kept is provide reliable sources backing up its notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I did not see the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS section.  Thank you for providing that link.  This is much more clearer.  Hopefully some better sources will pop up before this article's time is up.  I took the liberty of saving the article seperately, if it gets deleted, and repost it when better sources come about.  I expect article's creator has already done the same as well.  Thanks again for your patience, Tony Fox.  Geeky Randy 06:53, 22 July 2007 (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.