Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission Accomplished (novel)

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 both - crz crztalk 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Accomplished (novel)

Mission Accomplished (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This novel is non-notable, failing the "has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" test from the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The "publisher" (Dog Ear) is a self-publishing company, not an actual publishing company. It also fails the Google test, and it is likely that most, if not all, of the results were in fact posted by the author. Essentially, it is questionable whether anyone has actually read this book besides the author, and its inclusion here is basically for advertising and was posted by the author himself, Patrick S. Johnston. Bobanny 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for deletion because it is the author's page and this book is his only claim to notability:

• Patrick S. Johnston

Bobanny 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both, self-promotion, puffery. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:BK. The book doesn't even show up on worldcat. Pascal.Tesson 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - it looks like a singularly terrible idea for a novel.--Dmz5 06:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Dmz5's post was subjective and therefore irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. User: Zoe's "self-promotion, puffery", ok, but so is every one of you all's user pages. Dog Ear is a self-publishing company and an actual publishing company, they have buildings and employees and everything. I would be willing to see the author page go for the time being, but I want to discuss the book page. So it doesn't show up on worldcat, if it did like Jesse Izzard's Mission Accomplished! by Athena Press, which isn't an "actual" publishing company, could the book page stay then? What if other users posted details about the book, would that suffice the idea that no one has read the book but the author standard? Basically, what is the minimum standard here for posting an article about a novel? Can the article be reposted if after deletion it clears notability hurdles? pjohn13 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • An article and user page are not the same thing. Your book was published because you paid Dog Ear to publish it (it's usually the other way around for notable books - buildings and employees are irrelevant). Other users haven't posted anything about the book, which is the point, and no it doesn't count if you get your roomate or mom to say something nice, or "forget" to log in so it looks like a different user is saying something nice. Good luck to you on your book, but right now, it's not notable and Wikipedia is not for advertising, period, which most Wikipedians feel strongly about. Try MySpace or Blogspot instead of trying to negotiate your way to success here - that's exactly what those websites are for. If the book becomes notable in the future, someone else will gladly do up an article here about it without being asked, prompted, paid, related to you or an acquaintance of yours.Bobanny 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable nor acceptable academic resource unlike an actual encyclopedia. It will remain this way as long as unqualified persons are allowed to post on the site and manage it. Which is fine if that is the route you all are interested in, but any kind of claims to integrity are ridiculous when one looks up other articles for so-called notable novels that give away the plot and gives lazy people an opportunity to speak about the book as if they read it. If you want to do something commendable, go delete all the spoilers that exist. Also, do not pretend for an instant that an article about a form of entertainment does not contribute to commerce. Wikipedia is a form of advertising. It matters very little whom posts on the site about it, if the consumer can find more information on this site than on a commercial site, it may influence the sale. And please don't pretend that notability is anything more than subjectivity. As you yourself suggest, someone will post an article if the novel becomes notable, as in if they read it and LIKE it and take the time to post the article. I would hope they would not ruin or cheapen the story by putting it on this site where anyone can look at it and judge a book they have not read by information that could be inaccurate. So you want to remove this article, fine, just make sure you go around the site and take down the spoilers that contribute to intellectual laziness (you have plenty of work to do). If you do not, then you have no reason to take down the article about my novel which gives away nothing. If my novel fit your norm of notability, which is skewed toward big corporations in this case, we would not be having this dialogue. Which is certainly reasonable, it is not as if they publish things like the OJ book. Oh wait, they did. With the enforcement of norms comes power and responsibility, so use it. Not to mention there are articles that show their bias toward the book they read, here's an article for you to start on: When Patty Went to College, Which contains this gem: "Dear Enemy is an excellent read." pjohn13 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you read Wikipedia:Spoiler warning? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have read the spoiler warning and I am well aware of pages that fulfill the letter of the idea of spreading information, but are totally disrespectful of the author and their work. Take the page on Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five for example, if not for the spoilers, the page would have no more information than is needed for someone to decide if they want to read the book or not while giving that person reading the article a sense of what the novel is about. If Vonnegut wanted to write down everything someone needed to know about the novel without having to read the novel, he would not have written a novel. It would be impossible. Vonnegut would be instead writing a study guide. This is because a study guide is not a narrative. A study guide is thought to be authoritative, as giving one the "facts" so one can say that one knows what is important about that work. When an author writes a novel to tell us something through the use of narrative, the reader brings their subjectivity to the reading and will interpret what is important. The spoiler, one who posts their interpretation as fact, has not done anyone a service by providing information, but has colonized the process of critical reading. One can choose to avoid the "information" of the spoiler, but not everyone will. A narrative is not created to be static and closed to thoughts about meaning and allowing anyone to impose a particular meaning on a narrative is dangerous because it can make thought become dogmatic instead of dynamic. pjohn13 8:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WANT INFORMATION< PUT DATA PUT BACK UP! Well I take it im one of the few who ordered this from amazon. good book. now i want some background info and all i get is a debate. lame. can someone redirect me to an information source?gotro33current UTC time is 8:33

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.