Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Elsewhere

From 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. Lots of "keep" arguments tossed due to weak interpretation of guidelines and readily apparent sock-puppetry. A Traintalk 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Elsewhere

Home Elsewhere (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Per this tagging, and the fact that there is no assertion of notability. Giggy UCP 07:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable book by probably non notable author. Both book and author fail to appear via Amazon test and I pretty certain hits on Google do not relate. Pedro |  Chat  09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • SaveThe assumption that this book and author is "non-notable" is misguided. The ISBN for the book is 9781598728156 and the Library of Congress Catalog number is 2007902579. (Either way it meets at minimum the guideline of notability as per stated in Wikipedia's notablility measures.) "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number" --12.227.243.54 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This book was featured was validly featured and reviewed in the Kentucky New Era in an column by Evelyn Boone - July 16th 2007

Also, it was featured in the Todd County Standard, July 17th 2007. The book is also to be sold at Borders, Joseph Beth, and on Amazon - maybe crystal balling but never the less, seems quite valid

  • Keep search checks out. Book non-NN --12.205.202.251 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you review the edit history of the unsigned votes listed above, the book itself, and the book's author Matthew Colin Bailey, you'll see evidence that suggests that votes and comments may be coming from a person or persons with vested interest in this book and its subject matter. Since WP:AfD requires disclosure in such a case, I'm hoping such disclosure is forthcoming or confirmed to not exist among those who posted the unsigned votes and comments.
The fact that according to the Google Base link above, the book is published by Sheridan Books, a vanity press self-publisher, doesn't help the cause. What would help the cause would be reviews by well-known critics, published by reputable sources. 68.165.76.202 07:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment The book was printed, not published by Sheridan Books. --12.218.199.245 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable book - local/regional interest at best. Just because a couple local sources mentioned it doesn't make it notable. Perhaps could be mentioned in the article on the subject of the book. Vespid 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The book may not be notable to the extent of being a "national release" however, it still meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notable material. The book is obviously a local writing and makes no claim not to be, they only published 500 copies. The value is therefore set that the book, even to a small audience, is valuable because of its information relating to this "community house" which is notably the "first in America. We have no Harry Potter on our hands, but we certainly have no failure either. I also seriously doubt that the author or "anyone" affiliated with the books is using Wikipedia as an advertising tool. There are only two or three sentences and certainly no mention of where the book can be bought or even how to get a copy. Anywho..

Under these two clauses does the book meet Wikipedia's standards

The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.[6] Per this and other articles - [1]

The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. 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.

- As stated that the book was reviwed in the Kentucky New Era on July 16th, and in the Todd County Standard on July 18th. --Benny the bureaucrat 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Notice that most, if not all, posts supporting this article appear to be either single-purpose accounts/posting, and/or the IP's all trace back to the same small town in Kentucky (Oak Grove). Looks like sock/meatpupettry in use here. Less than 500 copies with local distribution and coverage is not notable. Perhaps just a footnote on the author's page. Vespid 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that "Vespid" has signed this as "delete" twice making one of his motions void. Since it is a local book, of course there would usually only be local remarks. --12.218.199.245 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment These are not votes that are tallied and I was just making clear my opinion had not changed after reviewing the comments. The fact that I'm the same person is obvious as I'm using my same established account each time. Furthermore, your "local" comments continue to make my point. Vespid 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per comments by Benny the bureaucrat --74.140.170.80 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vespid. Kayaker 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
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.