Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninth Day of Creation (2)

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. --Coredesat 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth Day of Creation

Ninth Day of Creation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable book per WP:BK. The book has already survived an AfD debate which ended in no consensus a year ago, with what seemed to be a couple of single purpose accounts and some particularly odd rationale[1]. The book's publisher admits to having created the article. Also nominating Immunological Technologies which was created to support this article. The article about the book's author Leonard Crane currently is tagged with a prod but I suppose that if it's deproded, it should be added to the current debate.Pascal.Tesson 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with some of Wikipedia's notable policies. The book was published, which I believe makes it inherently worthy of an article. However, by the strict Wikipedia guidelines, this book is non-notable. Still, I'd rather see the article stay than be deleted. - JNighthawk 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Obviously verifiable. Guidelines are NOT policy, and the one referenced is particularly bad. I'd rather have future anthropologists decide the notability, thank you very much. Unfocused 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the main Ninth Day article but delete the Immunological Technologies one. The net change in the main article between this AfD and the last [2] has only been to remove the entire plot synopsis and insert an infobox. I suppose that the two reviews cited do come from third-party independent sources which choose books to review based on notability, and can hence be considered assertion of this book's notability. As for Immunological Technologies, I do not believe it is major enough to deserve its own article. Kavadi carrier 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to add that the book's publisher had published nothing else than this single book. According to Worldcat, the book itself is not in any public library in Canada or the UK, in only one in Australia, and in 37 in the US which is very very low. It's also a fact that the creation of this article was part of the publisher's effort to make this book more well-known [3]. Yes there are two reviews but the idea that they choose to review this book because it is notable does not make any sense. Anyone can send their book for review to the SF site [4]: ok so someone there liked the book and wrote about it but they most certainly did not choose to do so based on the notability of the book. The book gets 82 unique Ghits. If you go through these, you will get a definite sense that this book has completely flown under the radar. I just don't see how this article can be viewed as anything but spam. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both as efforts at spamming. Kavadi carrier 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as spam. Also, the editor, Kappa, that de-prod'd this article the other day had just deleted (within the same minute) a key, relevant phrase from the proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 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." He/she then removed the PROD tag, noting the article had two reviews. But they were not in "works serving a general audience" (Chemical & Engineering News and SF Site Games). The guideline change, made with no talk page discussion, was immediately reverted. So, except for when Kappa has deleted that language, this article does not meet the relevant notability criteria in the proposed guideline. --A. B. 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will remove prod tags from articles which appear to have multiple indenpedent sources regardless of what WP:BK says. Kappa 05:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa, are you saying that you will be the ultimate arbitrer of notability, not community consensus if it goes against you in the form of a proposed guideline you disagree with? --A. B. 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Kappa 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good -- I was worried. --A. B. 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I found out about the book after the book's promoter spammed multiple submarine-related articles and categories with links back to this vanity article. This single purpose editor hyped the book in various articles scattered across Wikipedia. --A. B. 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Montco 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a book, but so what ? It was reviewed, big deal ! Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Never mind Kappa's rewrite of WP:BK, notability is neither claimed nor implied here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn meshach 19:55, 5 November 2006 (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.