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. Kurykh (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id[edit]

The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Some SPAs on the talk page are claiming that it meets that; however, of the three sources they site, one is trivial (6 sentences on coverage of the book), one is a public access TV show interview that cannot be verified at the web address given, and the third is a press release from the author's employer, and thus is a connected source. I could find no better sources. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address/rebut the above claims: From Wikipedia:Notability (books) A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id by Aaron J. Lawler (2016) has been the subject of three non-trivial sources independent of the book itself:

  1. Suzanne Flynn's Kane County Chronicle article - a noteworthy news source servicing one of the largest counties in Illinois. Although Nat Gertler (above) has argued this is not noteworthy, the article meets Wikipedia's standards and is focused not only on the author but also on the novel and writing process. The criteria is about vetting sources, and this article is a verifiable and reliable source.
  2. The Chicago Cable25 News/CPRTV services the third largest market in the country, specifically the third largest local market. The interview with Jovie Calama, an entertainment personality highlighting Chicago artists of cultural significance, is the second corroborating source. The footage is archived with VIA Times the producer of the show and Cable25. After contact with the host, she will be also archiving the footage on YouTube as well as the site. Because the archive cannot be found online does not warrant deletion, as Wikipedia's own guidelines do not demand online archival.
  3. Although the third source, a press release from Waubonsee Community College, is connected to the author as his employer, this is a community college servicing the largest district in Illinois and an esteemed institution. Wikipedia's own criteria argue that although the rules it places for notability sreve as guidelines, the spirit of the rules are to establish credibility. Here, the backing of Waubonsee is not merely as an employer but a higher education institution which lends credence and merit to the work through its support of the novel, not the employee.

In addition, a number of other sources are being added each day, as is the spirit of Wikipedia - an ongoing, living body that is improved continually. As such a great number of links to other Wikipedia articles as well as outside sources continues to add to the merit of the article. Wikipedia thrives on interconnecting internally and externally, and this article does both. Furthermore this article adds to the culture.

All three sources provide enough credibility together - three distinct and respected institutions demonstrate the novel is of some cultural significance. Using Wikipedia's guidelines, this article does not warrant deletion. Hermes1416 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Hermes1416[reply]

Despite your phrasing, I did not claim that the Kane County Chronicle is not noteworthy itself. I claimed that the coverage in the article is trivial. Would Waubonsee have done a press release about the book had the author not been their employee? Well, given the lack of findable press releases about the book from all of the other institutions of higher education in the world about this book, I think we can safely say that the answer is no. They were promoting the book as part of promoting their employees and thus themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Do not delete! The argument for deletion appears to be a subjective and opinion based argument. Wikipedia's guidelines and the spirit of those guidelines have been satisfied by two distinct sources and a third supplementary source. The argument to delete is based on non-noteworthy or notability clauses, yet being small and being published by a small publisher does not constitute non-noteworthiness. On the contrary the informs, adds to the body of knowledge of the culture, and provides up to date, current information - are these not the purposes of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an aggregate of content to enrich and educate. This artilce does this; it does not sell or promote and agenda, and it is corroborated by two distinct sources - the criteria of noteworthiness. I believe the proposal for deletion is biased. The article mirrors a number of other articles with like content in like categories. It makes connections between a number of internal sources and external sources. It provides useful information. The work contributres to our culture - even if small, it is not insignificant. To claim so, simply means that we are ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines and spirit, and will only follow a paradigm that is narrow. Why delete the article? How does it not add content and meaning? How is it insignificant if two news media outlets found it noteworthy? Hermes1416 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a side note, Hermes1416, if you are affiliated with the author then you need to disclose this. The book is fairly obscure, so it's unlikely that this was written by someone who isn't familiar with the author in some form or fashion. I also note that on this image you claim that the cover is your own work, which also gives off the impression that you are affiliated with Lawler. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article: A third news independent news source references the book, and has been added to the references. This satisfies Wikipedia's two source criteria, and continues to establish the notability; even if only locally covered. There's a lot of precedence in Wikipedia articles including indie works that are well known locally. Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the Daily Herald piece - which is the college's press release already discussed above. Not an independent source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SKCRIT WP:KEEP : Meets the required two source (three sources provided). Is culturally significant and locally important. Links to lots of other articles. WP:SK : Why delete it? Its a good article, and it is being cleaned up by the editors below Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KEEP - Could we just jeep the article? Other editors above are cleaning it up, and its coming together nicely - thanks Tokyogirl and LadyShallot! Does keeping yhe article hurt Wikipedia? Could we just try and clean it up if there are errors?Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just linked in several different ways to information on "Speedy Keep" here, but don't state how it meets WP:SKCRIT... unsurprisingly, because it doesn't. Multiple editors have called for deletion, so criteria #1 and #2 are ruled out. I am not banned (so no #4), the page is not a policy or guideline (so no #5), and the article is not currently linked to from the main page, so no #6. So that leaves #3, which requires me not to have read the page in question, which is not the case. Please note that even the experienced editors you site as helping to improve the article are supporting its deletion. It's not a matter of errors, it's a matter of meeting our guidelines; Wikipedia is not intended to be a catalog of all books.
You currently have three !votes listed above - one "Keep article" and two "WP:KEEP". Can you please strike two of those out? We have a limit of one activate !vote per editor, and normally if someone posts two we just strike one out... but as you have posted two different !votes, I cannot be the one to decide which gets struck, it will have to be you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nat but you seem to have some vendetta against this page, and are pretty hostile in your arguments. I think you're taking this personally (and to be frank are a bit smug, not an insukt but a concern on your impartiality). You continue to make the same arguments, and I'm sorry but there are at least two valid sources. You might not like it but there are two. Considering your own comflict of interets it seems iromic you will be so hsitile here - you literally have done this with your own articles. I bring this up NOT AS AN ATTACK but as a point - why not give this one small article a chance? It does meet the criteria. And las,tly, Wikipedia literally says that the deletion process is not a vote. Its about the content. Every thing you have said does not undo the spurces backing up the notability of the book - it is indie but still worthy. Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how explaining "speedy keep" or that you're not supposed to have more than one !vote active on the page is hostile, it's me trying to help a new editor understand the process. I'm not clear on what you're saying I've "literally done [...] with [my] own articles"; I've not cast a !vote on AfDs for Nat Gertler, if that's what you're trying to imply. There are many, many articles submitted that do not rise to our guidelines, and I do not see a reason to treat this one as an exception. Trying to paint me as a problem does not overcome the fact that every experienced editor who has voiced their opinion here has felt it should be deleted, so perhaps the case for keeping the page is not as clear as you're claiming. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I think the issue is not that I am trying to paint you any way. Its that even though the other "experienced" editors have suggested deletion they have gone in to help improve the article. I do not want this to turn into a flaming war or anything. My comments are really about how you have presented the information - you come off with an agenda. Unlike the others who have offered suggestions to improve and have gone in to improve the article. So and then there is your comments on Action Comics pages and what not. Is that not a conflict of interest - do you not have a personal interest in those articles? My point is not to say that one wrong excuses another, but exactly the opposite. What I am saying is that all articles have issues. And this one is not perfect, but can be improved. Your quick action to delete, and then your commitment to that agenda seems beyond the scope of just an "editor" with experience trying to help a young editor. So I have to ask why so committed to deletion? Because although you state the same arguments over and over, I am not sure they are any better each time??? ANd I appreciate you helping me with the Speedy Keep - you are right, I am learning! Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you look again at the history of the editing of the article. Even after nominating the article for deletion, I too did editing to improve the article, correcting spelling, punctuation, and getting it looking more like a standard Wikipedia article. When you see my comments on About Comics-related pages (would that I were the publisher of Action Comics, that would put me in a very different realm in this business), posting comments on talk pages related to you is how someone with a conflict of interest is supposed to primarily handle things, per our conflict of interest guidelines (which I suggest you review if you're going to be talking about people's conflicts). However, I have not accused you of a conflict of interest, and the person whose COI issue I did raise had that issue raised by the two other editors you singled out for praise as well (here and here.) When I point out that the "new source" you're pointing to is just the press release again, that's not my repeating an argument, that's me showing that your new argument doesn't significantly change matters. I have not said that this article could not be improved, but the improvements that I see would not overcome the central notability problem... and I suspect that the other delete-!voting editors who have been editing this page feel similarly, given that they have not changed their !votes (if you're not used to seeing the term "!vote", that means "not-a-vote", and is used to refer to the primary opinion statement of folks in discussions here.) My agenda is to help Wikipedia be the best it can be, and that includes making sure it is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a home base for hype, and I have put in the thousands of hours into that effort; it is not some personal vendetta against some single book that I'd not heard of before and would not be likely to run into otherwise.
So if you could stop trying to make this discussion about me, not only would I appreciate it, but your arguments would be more likely to carry weight. If you do have other comments about me that you'd like to make, I request that you take them to the talk page that's linked to in my signature. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify because I think there may be a bit of confusion: it is correct that AfD discussions are not votes. When someone refers to a !vote, that literally means "not-vote". It is an unfortunate bit of jargon I wish we wouldn't use, but it is commonly used here. LadyofShalott 15:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the author[edit]

Hello all! What a spirited debate! I will begin with the disclosure that I am the author of The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id. Hermes1216 and FitzFaradayFan are loosely connected to me in that they are fans who have reached out to me in a number of ways. It was their idea to create the Wikipedia post, and for that I thank them for their support! Its all humbling to be sure!

I am happy to provide any insight into the article itself. I did give Hermes1214 permission to use the cover (which was actually designed by David King of Black Rose Writing) and the two illustrations which are in fact mine. I believe there might be some confusion there.

I also believe that my lectures on "bias", "Wikipedia" and "small press" may have helped embolden some of the claims that are being debated back and forth (I have compiled these into my personal bio here on Wikipedia - as you can see I am new to the Wikisphere, as it were). In any event, if I can shed some light on the debate here, I think first and foremost, I believe in supporting small press endeavors. I also do not believe that any academic/professional, no matter the background, can truly come to a discussion without bias. The lecture I typically share concerns "color blindness" and "race". To say one is color blind is to simply fight ignorance with more ignorance, and furthermore, is disingenuous. We all bring biases, and when we are transparent about them, it makes for a more honest and productive debate.

My input, small press and notability[edit]

Solicited or not, my hope in adding my two cents will offer some conflict resolution. I think what FitzFaradayFan and Hermes1412 have argued comes from the same origin point in my own philosophy concerning Wikipedia. I believe in the five pillars, and strongly believe in the open source, free to edit/contribute mantra. We all bring some level of expertise to topics, and what better sources than primary sources? This could be considered a conflict of interest, but I consider it primary sourcing. In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, I do not believe the article promotes, sells, or advertises. Simply informing others about a small, yet if I dare say in the most modest of ways, significant work should be in line with Wikipedia's mission. But if it is not, then I defer to you more experienced editors and ask how would a small press book like this one get notability? What credibility would it need to warrant sharing of its content and its message with those who would be willing to listen?

The question of notability is one in which that cannot be severed from small press in general. Small press is by definition less notable than say the Big Four. Acknowledging that small press has its own hurdles to overcome, I understand that establishing notability is challenge. Perhaps this article was made prematurely, as the novel was only released in November and there is going to be more opportunities for it gain credibility. I believe a number of the comments concern that lack of reviews, which I will admit there are few formal reviews and most of the press surrounding the book is intimately linked to me. However, there is cause; this partially due to the fact that I meant the work as a teaching tool. Although fiction, it provides a number of Common Core opportunities, and I in fact created a curriculum to coincide with the novel's release. In any event, it appears my career and the novel have somehow become intertwined.

Where to go from here?[edit]

Both Hermes1216 and FitzFaradayFan have asked for help. I have decided to step in, not just to support their work (and humbly, my own) but also my strong belief in Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia as a teaching tool in a variety of ways, and I would be remiss if I did not say that I was quite pleased to hear that my book was going to be a part of the encyclopedia (and of course saddened to hear of the issues surrounding the book's addition).

I know, as a user of Wikipedia, there have been countless times I have come to the site and wished there were articles or more information on a given topic. As an avid reader, there are often obscure works that never seem to have enough content and remain in the stub category. I believe this is what these two individuals were simply trying to do. Intentions aside (the road to perdition paved with good ones!), I must press once more, what could we do to preserve their work? They believe passionately in what they tried to do, and alas, possibly due to some of my influence concerning my celebration of small press.

I understand that Wikipedia has a specific role, but I do not believe that role is merely a collection of "notable information." If that were true, then Wikipedia would not solicit input from the community. Nor would Wikipedia contain the clause that there are no rules, just guidelines. My understanding is that the page will not be deleted right away, until this discussion comes to a close. When might that be? What is the timeline? Given that timeline, what can be done to improve the quality of the page? What is specifically missing? For instance, if I look at similar articles on similar books, I do not see much discrepancy. So is it simply a "luck of the draw?" I know that each article is treated on its own and that one decision does not influence the next, yet if that is completely true, then citing standards from other decisions makes little sense either. If we say this book is less notable than say "X" or "Y" then we are using standards. And if we are using standards, then they should be applied equally.

My final thoughts[edit]

I am intimately connected to this article via the subject/content and the originators. They are my fans, for whom I will always support. There are few, as this is a small publication from a small publisher. But I believe in small publishers; I believe they, if for no other reason, pose an alternative to the Big Four. Why should four companies dictate what is part of our literature when 99% of books are not part of their repertoire or best sellers?

I am most concerned about preaching a lie. Does Wikipedia offer opportunities for an open source project, or not? If something can be created, moderated, retooled and refinished, why then tear it down?

Is this self-serving? Of course! But the truth is, all of our actions are, even the most selfless are carried out for the self-serving purposes of goodness, righteousness, and justice. I care about the work these two individuals did and I care about why they did it. And I believe they did it within the guidelines, the scope and the spirit of Wikipedia - specifically in terms of the five pillars, but also in terms of is this not what we want for Wikipedia? Do we not want primary sources contributing expertise to help create the greatest wealth of knowledge the world has ever known?

Thank you for listening and humoring my objection. Please let me know what I can do as the author.

Aaron J. Lawler 23:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming in and expending so much time and energy making your thoughts known. I do not have a lot of time at the moment and will address what I can, quickly; forgive any abruptness.
  • You ask what you can do to preserve their work. The quick answer is to save a copy and feel free to use it elsewhere on the web should it end up deleted. Their work and the work of everyone else that has worked on the article is released under appropriate creative commons licenses. Wikipedia is not meant to be the one and only reference source.
  • If your question is really meant "how can I keep this page in place", well, the main thing that you can do is to make the book achieve recognized notability. Win some major awards, get reviewed in the sort of book review places that have impact in the book world. (And yes, I'm sure you'd like to have all that happen for reasons besides Wikipedia.) The experienced editors who have weighed in against the presence of this article have all done so on the basis of notability. I realize that this is unlikely to happen within the week that these discussions usually run, but there is nothing preventing the page being reestablished in the future should there be a significant change in notability. The eventual 60th president of the United States is just a baby now, and would likely have her page deleted at this point as well; that doesn't mean she can't get one later, once she's established herself.
  • I understand that it is hard for a small press book to achieve the necessary level of notability; for that matter, most major publisher books do not end up with a page here either.
  • You ask "what better sources than primary sources?", and I expect that was intended to be rhetorical, but in Wikipedia's view, secondary sources are better than primary. See WP:PRIMARY for more information.
  • You come across as though you feel that Wikipedia should provide a countermeasure to the system's bias against the small publisher, but there is a long list of things that Wikipedia is not, and among them is that it's not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is by it's nature a follower, not a leader, in regards to what is considered important.
  • I will try to address the question of your images later on your user talk page, but in quick summary: you have to be the one to officially agree to permissions, a general granting of permission to a friend is not sufficient... and the cover image (particularly the one that was uploaded) may not be something that you have the permissions for in the first place.
Overall, some of your comments seem to suggest that you want to redirect Wikipedia somewhat (whether you recognize that or not), and the deletion discussion for an individual page is really not the place to achieve that. This is the tail end of the chain.
Good luck with your book! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2017 (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