Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight of the Old Dog

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 Keep the articles on the books but Delete Weaponry in Dale Brown novels. Though many people are making the argument from sheer numbers, the fact is, as they have also mentioned, that there is coverage of these books (I have the priviledge of being able to see the 'offline' articles) which is in more than passing, in multiple and reliable sources. However, as also pointed out, Weaponry in Dale Brown novels does not meet these criteria and is bordering on, if not actually, fancruft. My recommendation is that these articles be tagged for improvement and that those with access to LexisNexis add supporting quotes in the references so that those without access to the database can actually see what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs)

Flight of the Old Dog

I am also nominating:

These articles, all of which are about books written by one Dale Brown, fail to comply with:

Wikipedia:Verifiability: Source is what you mostly cannot find in them. The last article in the list above is the worst: Basically, one must study ALL of Dale Brown's works to be able verify the article's accuracy.
Wikipedia:Notability (books). Nearly all of them are made up of a small description and a long plot detail. Passing over the lack of source, there is no significant coverage of them in reliable secondary sources. (At a first glance, Silver Tower seems to be an exception but upon examination of notability claims, one realizes that it is not notable at all.)

The article Dale Brown is also in serious need of attention a third opinion, or perhaps an AFD. Fleet Command (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and tag for issues. Per this NY Times article, Flight of the Old Dog was a NY Times best seller, and the article I linked contains more than a passing mention. I haven't spent time looking at the other novels but I would be surprised if subsequent novels from a NY Times best selling author didn't garner multiple reviews from reliable sources. The only article that seems immediately dubious is Weaponry in Dale Brown novels, and really doesn't fit with the others which are articles about specific novels. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was about time! I was thinking when I am going to see you here, Whpq. Anyway, I am not sure if this NY Times article is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, so lets see what others have to say (though perhaps a merger with Dale Brown article is on the table). Still, this "Weaponry in Dale Brown novels" is completely unreferenced; you know, contents without references in Wikipedia are challenged or deleted. As for the other novels, well I am afraid someone does need to take his time because notability requires verifiable evidence you know. Fleet Command (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the utter lack of reliable sources to establish the notability of these articles, deletion wouldn't be out of line here, but at the very least the entire lot should be rolled into one article until the content can be fleshed out. Whether that is Dale Brown itself or a new list of books by Dale Brown is perhaps worth discussing: personally I'd just redirect to the author's article until someone makes the effort to add even the barest of secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book from apparently notable author. Agree with Chris's comment "I'd just redirect to the author's article" NickCT (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the novels. "Flight of the old dog" has "significant coverage" in the "reliable and independent" New York Times which says it was a best seller. Are there similarly good references for the other books, or not? Here is NY Times coverage of "Day of the cheetah," which was at least as high as #5 on the fiction paperback best seller list. Here is coverage in the NY Times of "Hammerheads." I would not hold out great hope for your proposed AFD of Dale Brown. An Associated Press article (AP archive, Nov 23, 1998)" says "Brown's books including Flight of the Old Dog, Day of the Cheetah and Fatal Terrain have sold more than 10 million copies in 70 countries." Edison (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: Well, you obviously misread the nomination on three accounts:
1. I never nominated Dale Brown.
2. You have misread WP:NBOOKS: We require multiple coverages for each, not one. After all, Wikipedia is not advertising agent of New York Times. Being a "best seller" does not necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article, per WP:NOTADVERT.
3. Again, you misread the nomination: Articles have other problems besides notability that are enough to warrant a merge (or deletion) such as lack of source and merely being made up of plot details.
Fleet Command (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you recall posting above "The article Dale Brown is also in serious need of attention a third opinion, or perhaps an AFD." That led to my expressing doubts about the success of such an AFD as you discussed. Note that I did not state you had ever AFD'd the Dale Brown article. Have you read WP:BEFORE? Did you check to see if the various books you lumped into this nomination had reviews in such sources as Publisher's Weekly "a weekly trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers and literary agents," per the Wikipedia article, and apparently a reliable source on books, besides the coverage in the NY Times? Here are some reviews of the various books by Dale Brown, in addition to the NY Times coverage you dismiss, in Publishers Weekly: [1]. Here is coverage of many of Dale Brown's books in Library Journal, another reliable source: [2]. Here are reviews of many of his books at Kirkus Reviews, another reliable source: [3]. Through a library, you might also check out the reviews of his books at Booklist, another reliable reference . Given that they were reviewed at all, how could you demand deletion for lack of verifiability? Is it the existence of the books, or their having been best sellers, or the plot details that you claim are unverifiable? Your reference to WP:NOTADVERT makes no sense. A listing as a best seller by the NY Times is not a paid advertisement. It reflects high sales. Edison (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect sir, I did read WP:BEFORE and I have been searching for convincing evidences since 18 February 2011. (Yes, it was an on and off affair; I have a life after all.) However, from where I am standing, I am not convinced. The search results you came up with seem to me like obligatory listing of statistics than actual coverages and admiration of the literary community.
All the same you did not address my second objection: The articles merit deletion, not just because their subject is not notable but because they themselves are are pieces of lamentable plot spoilers that do not resemble Wikipedia articles. Fleet Command (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent the references. What I cited includes reviews, i.e. significant coverage, not merely "statistics" as you claim. As for "plot spoilers," there is no objection to providing plot spoilers in Wikipedia articles about fiction. Do I have to search out that whole controversy, which was settled in favor of spoiling plots a few years ago? Please read the guidelineWP:SPOILER, which has some discussion on its talk page (and the archives thereof) as to why "spoilage" is appropriate in our articles about fiction. Folks who don't want to prematurely learn "whodunnit" should not read an encyclopedia article about a thriller. If the subject of an article satisfies WP:N, as the multiple significant coverage in reliable and independent sources for these works shows, then your assertion that the articles "do not resemble Wikipedia articles" is a call for "EDITING" to improve the articles, rather than deletion.Edison (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. Wikipedia is not a junk yard. If something is notable it may or may not have an article, but not junk. (I see that you have chosen to censor the fifth clause of Notability to suit your own favor.) These so-called articles are junks beyond repair. The best you can do to keep them is dump your Internet links there, hoping no one click on them and see how worthless they are. Fleet Command (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments become increasingly incomprehensible. I cited coverage of Brown's books at several reliable sites which are consulted by librarians when they make purchasing decisions, and you link to an irrelevant essay about "bombarding" with irrelevant references. Yes, it is easier for you to claim lack of verifiability and lack of notability when references are lacking, but I will not apologize for finding and citing references. What do you mean by your claim that I "censored" the "fifth clause of notability?" At WP:N, item 5 is "Common circumstances." Is that what you were alluding to? Edison (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll try to be nice and explain in great length:
First: I said "clause five" not "section five". Clause five says:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."
Well, these articles do violate What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specifically prohibits: Summary-only descriptions of works. As I kept saying and saying, these articles are not only plot summaries only but low-quality plot summaries too! In a word: Junk (as opposed to Good Article.)
Second: Bombardment is simple. Just dump a couple of links into an article, claim those links prove notability and tell everyone that "it is notable, so fix it!" However, upon close inspection of these links one may discover that "so fix it" is impossible as these links may not be used to provide inline citations and improve the article to the condition of a Good Article. The article stays in a limbo state, stuck somewhere between Stub-class and Start-class but neither of the two. The sources that you have introduced are of such quality: They cannot be actually used to fix the articles. WP:NBOOK, our main reference of notability for book dismisses such assertion of notability and requires that:
1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
Have to break off now. Later... Fleet Command (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weaponry in Dale Brown novels as original research, since there is not only no secondary coverage, but the list of weapons is not even cross referenced to the novels in which they are said to appear. It is also unclear which were or are actual deployed weapons and which are fiction, like Gundam gadgets. Edison (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps such stuff would be better off put in some Dale Brown wiki. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the books that are bestsellers are notable. The first one, Flight of the Old Dog, says "the paperback edition sold 1.1 million copies in the first two weeks". Selling over a million copies in two weeks is a notable accomplishment by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 10:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. As far as Wikipedia:Notability (books) is concerned, the book could have been sold a zillion copies and still do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. You basically said Delete, only you yourself don't know it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) does not describe the actual practice in AFDs, where bestselling books generally get kept as de facto notable, then it may need a tweak. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says "Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." Best sellers are "well known." The employment of guidelines requires a measure of common sense. Books are popular culture. In music guidelines, being "ranked on national or significant music charts" is taken to imply notability. Being a bestselling book similarly implies notability. I have added some references to the various book articles under discussion. Many of Brown's thrillers have had multiple lengthy reviews published in reliable sources in addition to being bestsellers, thus satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A small number of campers keep the notability books guideline from being changed to something more reasonable, however in most AFDs where the book is a bestseller, it is kept, do to common sense. And I know what I said FleetCommand. If the New York Times believes that selling over a million copies in two weeks is amazingly notable enough to have an article on, then obviously that is something of importance. Dream Focus 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense and nonsense! First, the mere word "bestseller" is a peacock term and is not allowed in Wikipedia; not to mention that your interpretation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is totally novel and partly bogus. Second, Wikipedia is not a slave of New York Times to write an article for whatever unremarkable piece of junk that they fancy. Third, if you two do not agree with notability guideline on books, then you have a conflict of interest. Last but not least, I have repeated multiple times that notability is not the only problem of these articles as they have a problem with WP:NOT too (which is one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia). But you two simply refuse to get the point. Fleet Command (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You honestly believe the word "bestseller" is not allowed in Wikipedia? By "unremarkable piece of junk", you are referring to a book that sold over a million copies in less than two weeks? If it was junk, or unremarkable, then it wouldn't sell that well. Dream Focus 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Check this out:
        In everyday use, the term bestseller is not usually associated with a specified level of sales, and may be used very loosely indeed in publisher's publicity. Bestsellers tend not to be books considered of superior academic value or literary quality, though there are exceptions. Lists simply give the highest-selling titles in the category over the stated period. Some books have sold many more copies than contemporary "bestsellers", but over a long period of time.
        And "junk" refers to articles not books as explained earlier; maybe you though we have nominated books for deletion? Fleet Command (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "specified level of sales"? One of them sold over a million copies in one week! And do we eliminate articles on television programs because the highest rated ones "tend not to be considered of superior academic value or literary quality"? Educational things are less likely to be reviewed than popular entertainment, just as some genres of books are less likely to be reviewed than others. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, with strict following of rules. Instead one of the policies is WP:IAR, to ignore all rules and use common sense. That certainly applies here. Dream Focus 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        FleetCommand, you are engaging in a very petty sort of Wikilawyering.(You have complained about others Wikilawyering in the past). You seem to have misread the manual of style and common outcomes, or to have missed the relevant parts. "Bestseller" is not noted as a peacock term in the manual of style, and there are several articles about bestsellers. Wikipedia has the following articles:List of best-selling books, Publishers Weekly lists of bestselling novels in the United States, List of best-selling fiction authors and Bestseller, which notes the NY Times bestseller lists as tracking national and independent bookstores. It compares bestsellers to musical "chart toppers." The New York Times Best Seller list says that list is "widely considered the preeminent list of best-selling books in the United States." My "novel and bogus" interpretation of "common outcomes" is a direct quote. Edison (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Denying the antecedents. And yes, I reiterate that your interpretation of Commons Outcomes is totally novel and partly bogus, as you have denied the antecedents. Fleet Command (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your complaint is again unclear. If I am Denying the antecedent, then I am saying "If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q." What part of my quotation from common outcomes is P, and what part is Q, in your mind? Edison (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How long does this AFD have to be left open? It was started on 12 August. Seven days is typical. Edison (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was given another week at 26 August 2011. So I assume September 2rd will be when they look at it again. In case someone goes insane and actually deletes articles for such notable books, I went ahead and copied everything over, full history and all, to http://dalebrown.wikia.com/wiki/Dale_Brown_Wiki Dream Focus 00:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and 2 September 2011 will probably be final. Administrators don't usually relist more than twice. But I don't know why Edison asks such a question when he knows the answer. After all, I know that he is an admin and therefore knows all of these. Strange. 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) }
Keep Flight of the Old Dog and any other novel that has made the NYT bestseller list per DreamFocus. Merge the other book articles into a List of Dale Brown novels or the like. Then, Redirect the weaponry (and aircraft, too) to the list. There's no reason to delete the weapons/aircraft information--it appears harmless--and maybe someday someone can make something out of it.

Note for the record that I actually like this way of dealing with a finite but problematic topic. While some editors oppose mass dissimilar nominations, this gives us one discussion to handle multiple issues and come to a solution for the entire topic, rather than individual articles getting hit-or-miss attention. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as that finite number is managable, I do not mind seeing two or four or six related articles at the same AFD. However, many of us have seen mass nominations of 20 or 40 or 60 related topics, making the addressing of issues problematic at best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - simply notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the novels; probably keep the weaponry article also as a useful summary. The books are best sellers, as proven by reliable sources like the NYT, and that settles it. I am really surprised the nom did not withdraw this after that was pointed out. Any books for which there seriously remains doubt about notability should be nominated separately. WP:BEFORE should be a requirement,for it will prevent useless discussions like this one. By any reasonable interpretation of the concept of notability, popularity of something to the point that RSs recognize the popularity is notability. What is not necessarily notability is unsupported assertions of popularity, which tend to mean only "I think it's interesting". DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A small number of editors at Wikipedia:Notability (books) are opposed to sales number or being a bestseller conveying notability. Far fewer have participated in such discussions than participate regularly here at AFD, so there is a disconnect between de facto notability as established here by the Wikipedia community, and the guideline as edited by a very few editors. The talk page archives of the notability guideline show contempt for books which were on the bestseller list for several weeks or months, on the grounds that once they fall off the best seller list, they are remaindered at outlet stores and fall from consciousness. This disregards libraries and continuing sales at Amazon many years later. The emphasis is on books which are "taught in school," and makes me wonder if the guidelines were set up by folks who rarely read for pleasure. Pop music has no such requirement of "being taught." In AFD after AFD, editors cite "bestseller" and the book is kept, and the guideline goes its merry exclusionary and deletionist way. (And I !vote for deletion many times as often as for keeping in AFDs.) Edison (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to just change the guidelines and that'll prevent future unnecessary discussions. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)#Strawpoll. How many want to make being on the bestseller's list proof of notability for a book? Dream Focus 00:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

Comment Your edit summary implied these links had not been here before, They are at the top of the AFD, except for the garbled "DangeThe Tin Man." (Dang him, indeed!). I already spent many hours finding sources at Google News, LexisNexis, and Proquest, via my library, and added numerous reviews from well known publications and NY Times bestseller placements to the several articles. Such a search by the nominator would also have been appropriate WP:BEFORE the mass nomination was made. Edison (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any "Find sources" there. What I do see is
Day of the Cheetah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Night of the Hawk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fatal Terrain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Tin Man (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Storming Heaven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Silver Tower (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Weaponry in Dale Brown novels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

So I put some here so I could look at them before offering an opinion. Good work on the article improvements by the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL Books that make it to The New York Times' best seller list are invariably the recipients of review and commentary from multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Just as have these,[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and just as has the author himself.[10] We do not delete notable topics if perceived issues can be addressed through normal editing, just as was shown by the "normal editing" work of User:Edison. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the weaponry article as unsourced and thus presumably original research (as well as non-notable fancruft). Weak keep the books, as they seem to have received the sort of coverage pulp bestsellers normally get. Sandstein 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that some portions of the weaponry article might be merged back into the various book articles if done in context and properly sourced. That would eliminate the "seeming" of original research, and place much of the information where our readers might best expect it to be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 3 September 2011 (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.