Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Steed (Young adult novels)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. A numerical reading of this debate might lead one to a no consensus close, however, a careful reading shows no reliable sources, and a clear policy-based consensus that this article should go. Courcelles 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Steed (Young adult novels)

Jason Steed (Young adult novels) (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)

No particular evidence given that it meets

ANI thread. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

My notes on this article and the G4 decline:
I know it's tedious but it seems the best answer is to have an actual deletion discussion here to determine if it meets criteria for inclusion. The claim is that things have changed since the previous deletion discussion; I think perhaps that's true but a discussion here can determine consensus.  Frank  |  talk  19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, you can see what's in the previous article: WHAT HAS CHANGED?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve new references. Nevertheless, I don't think it meets criteria for inclusion in the project. My G4 decline was process-based; I believe the end result will be the same, with one improvement: a much more recent deletion discussion. Tedious but ultimately useful.  Frank  |  talk  20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are full of puff and directory listings and I am not convinced that it meets
    guidelines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment: the author's article has also been put up for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Cooper (author). Perhaps these two AfDs should be merged? -- The Anome (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merging -- author could establish notability without establishing notability of this particular book series. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This new article is NOT identical content. One can cleary see that it has another recent center spread newspaper articles. The book now has two awards, news paper articles in both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has reviews from everyboook reviewer website and a review from a prominant author Joe Craig. If I scan 20 -30 books listed on Wikipedia I can't see any with this much attention, news stories. The book now has a major publisher and according to the publishers website it's scheduled for 7th Sept 2010 launch. Given the recent news articles and reviews I think it should be a strong keep. If we delete it, we must look why this is singled out compared to other books listed in the very same genre. I think the first rejection 14 months ago was correct. But the book has more than proved it self worthy among its peers since. Do we simply ignore this forever due to a posting 14 months ago. If we ignore the hundreds of reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and various websites submitted by independant people, can we ignore Joe Craigs review, and more newspaper articles. Has Wikipedia turned into a 'boys club' were one or two members can single out a topic? A simple google search (although not making it notable) will give over 92,000 results.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    I can head over to Amazon etc and post reviews on any number of books without reading them, it demonstrates nothing. We have various standards such as
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The newspaper latest newspaper review is a local new paper with a small box, which again reads more like press release type stuff. As for the issues of 14 months ago, you are correct they shouldn't play a part in how we view this today, however the majority of the above delete comments make no reference to the previous state, instead they say that they have evaluated the sources and searched out new ones before reaching their conclusions. You say the book has "more than proved it self worthy among its peers since". How? By getting a few paragraphs in a local paper and another author writing three sentences on it? Or by having any amount of essentially anonymous reviewers posting on the internet? -(talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

To post a review on amazon you must open an account and make a purchase with a credit card. But I don't think thoses reviews are being claimed as facts. Please stick to the facts, the Sunderland Echo is not a local paper, an authors review is exactly what it is, a review by a peer. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC))82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't claimed amazon's reviews are being used to support facts, I'm replying to your assertion that reviews on various websites by effectively anonymous authors is important - it isn't. No notability standard includes the number of user submitted reviews as a factor, please stick to the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Sunderland Echo is a local newspaper - it is not available nationally, even if it is available over a fairly large area. The Wikipedia article on it claims a declining readershipcirculation with the last being 44198 in 2008, given the UK where it is published has a population of approximately 60million, it reaches 0.07% of the nation. It's a local paper. The other authors review is referenced to a non-neutral source - the author of this book - the GNG requires independance. Regardless it still amounts to three sentences of puff - it is trivial coverage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rechecked amazon and it does require a purchase (it presents the link to add a review which is what I had seen) but only objects after following the link. This however doesn't make a difference to number of user submitted reviews not being a notability factor in any standard. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you getting confused? The 'indieaward' seems a "you pay us to enter" type of awards and not notable in any way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has the two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews to keep a book article - see Kirkus Reviews discussion below and [1], as well as three newspaper articles in England and America, radio coverage - and much more. Interesting that some editors here think that "pay as you enter" types of award are "not notable in any way." Perhaps Wikipedia should delete its article on the Pulitzer Prize, which requires a $50 entry fee. In addition, perhaps the hundreds of articles which reference the Sunderland Echo should also be deleted, as it is "only a local newspaper." (And former front page article on Wikipedia). Also, why is Cameron Scott intent on editing out all mention of awards in the article? Could it be they WANT the article to appear to be non-notable to potential readers?--Itshayfevertime (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between referencing for facts (where a local newspaper can be fact checked) and referencing to establish notability. If there are many articles on wikipedia which rely on the latter with a local paper then yes, they quite possibly could be nominated for deletion. The article on the Sunderland Echo appeared on the front page of wikipedia is largely irrelevant, it isn't an endorsement of it nor is it an indication of importance in any particular case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. Whoa. Okay, so notability is being established here by a) not winning an Indie Book Award, b) a blurb written by a fellow children's book author that is
    WP:GNG. Unless this becomes a bestseller or starts seeing critical attention from the world at large, this article needs to go. — Chromancer talk/cont 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Could Chromancer possibly explain this remark, as I don 't understand it. "a blurb written by a fellow children's book author that is probably NN himself" Does this mean Chromancer believes Jason Steed author Mark Cooper is Joe Craig, or that Joe Craig wrote Jason Steed, or that the quote is made up - or what? I am genuinely puzzled! --Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean none of those things. The blurb Joe Craig wrote about Mark Cooper's book cannot be used to establish significant secondary coverage, since it is self-published (i.e. Joe Craig's comment is published on Mark Cooper's website) and by someone whose opinion does not carry significant weight. — Chromancer talk/cont 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I don't really agree that the opinion of an award-winning author like Joe Craig "doesn't carry weight," but I really appreciate you helping to clear things up for me.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Does the Book of the year award by fictionreviewer not count? The book seems to be re-published tomorrow by a major publisher. Since when has a book got to be a 'best seller' to be mentioned on wikipedia? There are over 32,000 books listed here? I doubt a small fraction of those have won awards or been written about so much. I checked it out on google books, the book pays tribute to Raymond Steed a link from that wikipedia page states that money from the first edition paid for the memorial. What has this book not got that the thousands of others here have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.18.233 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I just did more research on the and found on Kirkus Reviews a company that has a reputaion of thrashing some books have given the novel a 5 star rating. This is the companies highest rating, Twilight was given 3.5. http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/childrens-books/mark-cooper/fledgling-2/ I think there must be more to the reason why some are wanting this book banned!— 173.65.18.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The first AFD addresses the fictionreviewer award with stuff like "See my comments above about fictionreviewer.com: they accept e-mail submissions and have horrible errors in their use of English on their contact page. The two combined, I feel, leaves them with zero credibility as a reliable source for book reviews.". Being published by a major publisher isn't one of the inclusion criteria. Where is your source for the book being a "best seller"? which best seller list did it appear on?
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, and besides quality is a factor, not quantity. So what about the first edition paying for a memorial, can people buy entries on wikipedia by making chartiable donations now? Of course not, none of our guidelines include any such criteria for inclusion. I'll have to look closer at kirkusreviews, a brief glance seems positive. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Kirkus Reviews is a RS, and is used as such on many articles here; It is a selective professionally edited review service very widely used by librarians. The Kirkus review concludes with "Well constructed, full of adolescent wish-fulfillment and almost believable, this is an undemanding page-turner in the spirit of Alex Rider and Co. that will appeal to parents as well as kids. Let the sequels begin." However, for books we've normally required two RS reviews. Problem is, I do not see another one, but I will check further. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These reviews don't show notability. Please come back with reviews from literary journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chromancer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Joe Craig blurb is a blurb, not a review. A review must be published. Authors, even prominent ones, say nice things about tother authors books for advertising, jacket copy, web pages, and Amazon--but they do not normally have any reliability at all. Only what they publish in an edited source is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OMG. I just googled it. This book is huge. EVERY book site around the world has huge reviews on it. http://eatingyabooks.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-middle-mondayreview-of-fledgling.html ARE WE NOT AN INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA? Why do we then ignore websites for clarification and look for resources such as old fashion newspapers and when we see them , we scoff them. I was amazed by the reviews this book has got from all these sites, that is an astonishment achievement by itself. As for the author paying for the memorial, "Good for him" to many of us forget our fallen heros' I say a very strong keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.112.162 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    — 12.230.112.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Frank  |  talk  03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So his paying for the memorial we should be impressed with and reward with an article? ARE WE NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA... We look for
    reliable sources coering the subject, not random anonymous people on the internet. Blogs like the one you've pointed to I can easily setup and write whatever I want, doesn't mean I know anything about the subject, so part of being an encyclopedia is actually filtering out such stuff, if we were just here to grab anything else from the web we may as well respoing wikipedia.org to google.com --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Mike - I have already said in this debate, two or three times now I believe, that I used to be Beehold. However, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Oliver0071, although you are not the only one to owe him an apology now.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth a sock report - the IP addresses as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have already been done, but if not, feel free. At least then someone might feel the need to apologise to Oliver0071 - as, after just looking at his contributions, he seems to have been scared off from editing at all.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - aggressive and shameless spamming history, very strong indications of sockpuppeting and the like; more to the point, still no notability established. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike - the book has the "two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews" to keep a book article on Wikipedia - see Kirkus Reviews discussion above and [3]. If there is spamming/sockpuppetry on this page, then it is NOTHING to do with me. I am the original author of this article and I know that, although you are allowed to have sockpuppets, it is against Wikipedia rules to use them to try and influence voting. So... feel free to check me out - or stop making false allegations.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is deleted, it should be salted given the aggressive attempts to ensure that wikipedia is used to advertise this book. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is an orchestrated campaign against this article. It meets the requirements of Wikpedia to stay on the site (two RS reviews)- yet there are editors such as Cameron who are determined to see it trashed. Hmmmm - I smell something rotten in the state of Wikipedia.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a standard which says 2 RS reviews. The standard is non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Multiple has a debatable meaning where the number is usually a factor of the perceived quality of the sources. (Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing if the sources meet the standard in the first place here, just a note that a hard 2 has never been the criteria). The idea that through continual recreation under different titles by SPAs is pretty scary to me, I smell something rotten and not eminating from wikipedias standards. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given it's been recreated under about 4 different titles now, posted on a similar number of userpages I doubt salting any given title will help. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly 0.01% of my edits (@10,000 edits) are about this article, clearly I am out to get it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - and another 10 percent are on my talk page, trying to get me to retailiate in some way. (Well, you are the major contributor anyway...) Tough - I know your game. --Itshayfevertime (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Itshayfevertime (talk · contribs) has opened an AN/I discussion regarding this AFD here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show notability. No prejudice against Frank, I'd have probably declined a G4 as well. The nearest these books come to notability is the article in The Cornish and Devon Post, but tellingly that article predicts a movie to be made in the summer of next year (2010) that clearly never happened. -- Atama頭 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The Cornish & Devon Post article, The Bradenton Times article and The Sunderland Echo article, so now we have unearthed 'THREE newspaper articles'. "two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews" a review or Blurb from award winning author Joe Craig. Surley the 'no-sayers' and those who started the 'ihatejasonsteed' wikipedia page should just own up and admit they have tried to sabotage a page that has the merits. I am 15 and would never come up with anything so dumb as this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ihatejasonsteed. This is getting childish. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reply - the Brandenton Times article wasn't even about the books, it was a biographical article on Cooper. The Steed books aren't even mentioned until nearly the end. It's good evidence for the notability of Cooper (whose article isn't up for deletion right now) but not the Jason Steed books. The article supposedly from the Sunderland Echo is not listed in their archives, so I can't tell if it was a brief blurb or a press release (if it was an actual article I would have thought they'd have it on their site). Why would you bring up some sockpuppet named "Ihatejasonsteed"; are you trying to accuse those arguing for deletion here of being sockpuppets? -- Atama頭 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Atama I am not saying anything like that, I know everyone means well and wants what's best for Wikipedia, I make many contributions on YA books and I set up the Mark A. Cooper page. My favorite author Anthony Horowitz is already open and all of his books have their own page. I am still shocked that if they can, how come Mr Cooper's book can't? I just mention the user page I did as it seems that someone is trying to stir things up, why else would they dream of such a name when this debate was going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't, that account was created and blocked a week ago (and the person who blocked that sockpuppet just happens to be the same person who created this discussion to have the article deleted). -- Atama頭 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Sunderland Echo story. It wasn't on their website - I don't know why - but here is the PDF copy they agreed to upload to Wikipedia. [4] It was part of a feature on YA books, with a special emphasise on Robert Muchamore and Mark Cooper.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 22:56, 10 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Steed_(Young_adult_novels)&oldid=1137944331"