Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The National Memorial

The reviewer here is clearly envious, and has resorted to false claims to have his way. Such a reviewer should be removed from any such capacity. Let's look at his false claims about this page.

1. He claims quite falsely that "John Barth jr has suggested that his being the son of John Barth contributes to the merits of including him, but notability is not inherited." I have said no such thing, and this editor's dishonesty reveals his motive: he is envious and intended to deny a well-earned distinction by lying that an improper claim was made. The page has been edited to de-emphasize the connection, although many readers really do want to know this.

2. He falsely claims that the page made false statements about book awards, simply because two of the five awards for 2016 were not judged yet: but those were 2015 contests won in late 2015. Again this editor wanted to find impropriety, so he jumped to that conclusion, and he was wrong.

3. He claims that the article is "written like an advertisement" simply because the book has received only very favorable reviews. I found no such writing but removed some phrases that might seem that way. This again looks like envy of the favorable reviews.

4. He claims that honorable mention awards should not be considered awards. Very few entries in book contests win honorable mentions or first/second place, and no doubt this editor has not won any of these, and is deliberately raising the bar to get his revenge the envied writer. Five honorable mention awards around the world is not trivial at all, and should count as a major literary award. More such awards are likely in 2016. The editor should try writing a book that wins any award, and see what an enormous task it is, before deciding that such distinctions are not earned.

5. He claims that "The reviews cited aren't from established critics" although most of them are in fact from professional reviewers. The criteria require only that the reviews be "non-trivial," which should exclude primarily reviews by website users or other writers who might be friends. The full text of all of these reviews is available. 5.a. He claims falsely that the five five-star reviews from GoodBooksToday and Reader's Favorite are "user-generated reviews" such as Google or Amazon reviews. Those reviews are all by independent reviewers. I am correcting the error attributing the GoodBooksToday review to GoodReads (a user-review site that shows the GoodBooksToday review). The Reader's Favorite reviews are indeed listed like user reviews on their website, but in fact these are independent reviews; they don't allow users to enter reviews. Those reviewers also agreed with the other reviewers. But their literary qualifications vary widely, so let's look at the others. 5.b. He ignores the professional CreateSpace review simply because editors are always paid. But they aren't paid to make compliments, they are paid to criticize, which they do very thoroughly, and in this second edit they found nothing to criticize. This review is certainly "non-trivial." Again this reviewer merely tries to invent other criteria. 5.c. He claims that the review by Foreword Reviews is "a paid-for review. Not independent." Foreword is highly independent and famously difficult to satisfy. All reviews cost publishers money. Review services charge a fixed fee for their expenses, not to say nice things. The editor should try to get such a review from Foreword before deciding that it is not objective. This is obviously a "non-trivial" review. 5.d. He admits that the CounterPunch review by Ron Jacobs is "nontrivial published work." Note that it agrees substantially with the other reviews. Another reviewer at CounterPunch (Beattie) substantially agreed. The criteria require "two or more non-trivial published [reviews] appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Here there are three or four independent published professional reviews, and five more independent published reviews of varying qualifications, substantially in agreement. It is good to exclude user-generated reviews and reviews by friends, but there are plenty of reviews here which meet the criteria, and three or four that are obviously "non-trivial". If one looks at the sources of fiction reviews, the large-periodical reviewers only rate work by bestselling writers, mostly entertainment fiction rather than serious literature. Review services are at least as credible as small periodicals. Not one of them has requested any improper influence or indicated any prejudice. Major review services charge the largest fees, and would be suspect if payment measured dependence, but in fact these are the most trusted services. This book has been reviewed by all of them except Kirkus Indie, which by reputation charges the highest fee and never says anything positive. A serious novel could not have more favorable reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Barth jr. (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 April 2016‎


 * I feel I should point out the obvious conflict of interest: An author writing a Wikipedia article about his own book. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you pay a reviewer to review your book, then that reviewer's selection of your book as the focus of a review is not an indication that the book caught his attention and that, all on his own, he found it worthy of a reading and a review. It's an indication that he fulfilled his end of the transaction between you and him, which he would do for anyone who paid him. The tenor of the review has nothing to do with it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)