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 merge to James_Wesley_Rawles. Despite the protestations, the article still has no indepedent third-party sources apart from blogs and interviews with the author. Whilst there is clearly no consensus to delete, our policies suggest that a merge to the author would be best until the book itself can support a policy-compliant article. Black Kite 12:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It[edit]

How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book has received no significant coverage in secondary sourcing, and the primary editor of the article is identified as "an old friend" of the author of the book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No.191 in Books, overall (out of 4 million+ titles.) And as follows in these categories: No. 1 in Books > Computers & Internet > Business & Culture > Future of Computing No. 4 in Books > Outdoors & Nature > Survival Skills No. 14 in Books > Reference

The author's blog mentioned that there is a review published in The Futurist magazine: "...the March-April 2010 Books in Brief section of The Futurist magazine, under the headline: Alarmingly Practical Advice For Doomsday. You can look for it on pages 60 and 61 of the March-April issue."

It certainly meets inclusion policy. Trasel (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment It must be noted that Trasel is described as "my old friend"[1] by the author of this book, so consider WP:COI here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda: I forgot to mention, that in addition to US print edition, there is a British print edition--(With a slightly different cover with "The International Bestseller" across the top) --three audio book editions (multi-CD, Mp3, and online), and the book is available on Kindle. So this in not some little crackpot missive that was cranked out by a vanity press, It is published by Penguin! I've seen it at both Barnes and Nobel and Borders brick and mortar book stores, the BX at Ramstein AFB, and also at Sam's Club, of all places. Its a mainstream book, and still selling very well. A book doesn't stay in Amazon's top 200 for six months if it is non-notable schlock. Trasel (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I must call attention to the AfD canvassing[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] by Trasel here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was neutrally requesting comments on an open AFD. You will note that in every instance, I asked that "..comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated." I DID NOT ask anyone to vote against deletion! Trasel (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trasel canvassed just the editors he knew were sympathetic to his Survivalist movement and they responded here voting 'keep'. One is an associate of the book author and the other has the name 'Surv1v4l1st', a fellow survivalist. Also note that Trasel also canvasses Survivalist blogs[11] for AfD votes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the AfD (I would think that a best seller would have more media coverage, but apparently not) ... however the canvasing at other venues is a matter of concern. people have been banned from the project for doing things like that ... it should be brought to the attention of an admin. Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum... The more I look into this, the more I lean towards a merger with the article on the author. I noticed that most of the statements that go towards establishing the notability of this book (sales figures, claims of being on a best seller list, etc.) were cited to the author's blog. This is improper sourcing. WP:NOTE calls for notability to be established in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have removed these citations as being unreliable for the this sort of information... And I note tht we seem to have this problem at all the articles relating to this author and his works. An improper over-reliance on the Author's own blog. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped contacting people outside of Wikipedia when I was told that it was against policy. But FWIW, its my personal opinion when the SUBJECT of a wiki article who is a living person has an article about them slated for deletion, or an wiki article about a book, movie, or play that someone created becomes slated for deletion, I think they should be told. And for that matter, whenever, a NEW article is created about a living person or their work, I think that we should tell them about it. This should be considered a matter of public trust in the Internet age. Trasel (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have ceased this behavior, then there is no need to push it further. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, looking above I see several editors who argue that because the author is notable, then it follows that all his books are notable too. When I look, I see essentially no book reviews about the book which is the topic of this article. They only book review cited in the article is by Weyrich Consulting[12], which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. We are looking for significant coverage in secondary sourcing. What I see above is several keep votes by friends and fans of the author, and no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sourcing. And, I notice that the sourcing of claims of 'best seller' come from the author's blog, perhaps there might be some independent sourcing of this claim? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I can't say that I'm a friend of the author, because I don't know him personally. I also can't really say a fan either, as I haven't read any of his books and am only somewhat familiar with his blog, so would say I'm neutral at the moment. So, I personally disagree with the characterization above.
Also, the 'Reception' section cites some coverage in secondary sources. A mainstream periodical and two syndicated radio programs are listed at the present.
The Weyrich Consulting site does look more than a little suspect and appears to be self-published, so agree with you on that point. Also agree that some kind of independent sourcing for the 'best seller' claim is badly needed.
All and all, I would just like to see deletion process slowed down enough to let the article be fleshed out.Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The phrase "The International Bestseller" is printed right at the top of front cover of the later edition published by Penguin - England. (Search on the book title at www.amazon.co.uk/ ) That edition was released after the success of the US edition. The FAZ newspaper in Germany called Rawles's novel "Patriots" am American Bestseller (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub48A3E114E72543C4938ADBB2DCEE2108/Doc~E340491DBEDE94C4E9DF01F07365C1827~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html), but I haven't seen any similar second party sources on his non-fiction book. I'll do some digging, as time permits. Trasel (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Just thought I'd provide the URL to the UK copy that Trasel referenced. [13] Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why do you think that merging the articles "makes a lot of sense"? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this author has published this book is well sourced in secondary sourcing, therefore the book description pertains to be included, (merged into) the author's article. The fact that this book has not received "significant coverage in reliable sourcing" (the standard needed for a stand alone article) has not been disputed here. Therefore this article does not meet the WP:Notability threshold for inclusion as a stand alone article, but it does meet the threshold for inclusion as a sub-section of the author's article. The material doesn't need to be deleted, it just needs to be moved. This article page would then be replaced with a redirect to the sub-section of the author's article. Problem solved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The "significant coverage" issue remains an open discussion. In fact, look up a few lines and you will see that very topic addressed (e.g. print and radio reviews, best seller status, etc.). I, for one, would really like to see some more sources, but there appears to be enough for a start. Any way, I am staying with the 'keep' for now as it appears to be a notable book and has been the subject in secondary sources. Merging, while better than a wholesale delete would, imho, just serve to clutter up the author's article. That's all I have to say on the topic and it will of course have to be left to consensus. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of fact, irregardless of double-talk, there has actually not been shown significant coverage in secondary sourcing. Notice that Surv1v4l1st does not point to specific examples of such coverage. None appears to exist. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Irregardless" eh? ;) As mentioned above, the article, as it is now, references a review in The Futurist magazine as well as radio interviews. There is at least one reference to the text being a "International Bestseller". As to accusations of double-talk, I would invite you to review the policy on civility. Goodness knows this AfD appears to be positively littered with violations of such from both sides of the conversation. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging in specifics instead of generality, I apologize for mistaking your generality for double talk. The Futurist so called review, is actually only a brief mention in their "books in brief" feature. This is not a significant book review. The two interviews you mentioned are part of the author's book tour, and book tours are quite mundane occurring for essentially every published book. Book tour interviews also fail to meet the standard here for notability which is instead "significant coverage in secondary sourcing". The "International Bestseller" reference to which you refer to comes from the cover of the book, which is not a secondary source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More