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. Did I really say "keep" last time? Sorry, finger slipped. LFaraone 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Clone

[edit]
Rogue Clone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Book of unasserted notability, by an author, Steven L. Kent, whose own notability is questionable at best. While I appreciate the fact the author, a new editor, inserted the ((Multiple issues)) template in his own article, one has to evaluate whether we even want an article on this topic. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to do things the right way. What do I have to do to keep this article? The author of the Clone series has written over 10 published books, being 7 of them in this particular setting. Why would Wikipedia not want all the books to have their own article? I've seen articles about movies that never even saw the light of day. I've seen articles about subjects that are fairly speculative. Why censure an article about an existing book? I will search for numbers to show the validity of my argument. Thank you.Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliberti (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. have been the subject The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
  2. have won a major literary award.
  3. have been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
  4. be the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  5. have been written by an author so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
Note that, in most cases, conditions 2, 3, and 4 imply that condition 1 was also met, so let's look at conditions 1 and 5. Steven L. Kent is nowhere near historically significant. He's no household name like John Grisham. That leaves condition 1. Has the book been reviewed by a major literary critic? Has it been reviewed in the literature section of the New York Times or another major newspaper or literary magazine?
If not, then right now is not the right time for Wikipedia to have an article on this book. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say, "Why would Wikipedia not want all the books to have their own article?" Actually, we want none of the books to have "their own article". We want encyclopedic coverage of the books that meet our inclusion guidelines, which implies that Wikipedia articles are about the books, not for them. Also, please note that Wikipedia's nature is such that some stuff will fall through the cracks, but your argument above is like saying "there are cracks in the system, so we have to widen them so that more stuff (usually implying "my" stuff) will get through." So the fact you're mentioning what else is on Wikipedia will quite simply not be taken in consideration here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what should I do now? Can I have a couple of weeks to talk to the author and find out about selling numbers and if this particular book has any relevant critical reviews? Or do you want me to just delete the article and try to improve the previous article about the first book into a piece that includes about all the books?
And it wasn't my intention to include "my stuff" through the "cracks" in Wikipedia. Usually Wikipedia is my go to source for any sort of information about entertainment pieces like books, video games and movies. When a friend of mine asked me to explain this series of books that I was reading I told him to go to Wikipedia. The thing is, there was no article about that particular book, and the article about the series only talks about the first book.
Anyhow, thank you for taking the time and explaining all of that.
--Frankie (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing the discussions on the The Clone Republic article and found a few arguments that would help this discussion.
User Dream Focus said:
"It is notable because it was reviewed favorably on many established media outlets. I read that it was on the bestseller's list at Barnes and Noble, but I'm having trouble navigating their website and finding that list. Anyway, being reviewed makes it notable enough for the rules. Does anyone know its exact sales figures though?
I'd like to point out that the plot summary isn't any longer than the one for the book I am Legend, or other novels out there, so no reason for people to complain about that."
Following this statement I also read on the top of the discussion page in a Wikipedia information box that "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia", which contradicts what you said about Wikipedia wanting none of the books to have "their own article" and being mostly an encyclopedic coverage of the books that meet the inclusion guidelines.
You obviously know more then me so I'm more "asking you" then "telling you" these things. But as an encyclopedia, wouldn't it be good to have a detailed database of published books? I agree with you about the articles being about the books and not for them, so help me adapt this article to these standards instead of deleting it. In my opinion it would be interesting to have one small and objective article about every single book of this series, or one detailed one about the whole series.
On the same information box I found this as well: "This article is supported by Science fiction task force (marked as Low-importance)". Can you explain to me how this works?
--Frank (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2012 (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