Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lucifer Principle

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. John254 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lucifer Principle

The Lucifer Principle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, the book's author, Howard Bloom, is notable, even if his page is a mess. The rationale given for deletion is underwhelming. Lankiveil (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment The book's author is notable or not is not the issue here. The issue here is that the book itself is notable or not. "Unencyclopedic" means not fit for encyclopedic standard. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The author being notable is not sufficient. WP:BK, Criteria -> point 5; Very few authors pass that test and get to rest on their laurels. TheBilly (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a serious book which was widely reviewed at the time of its publication. There are sources in the article. AfD is not cleanup. I note that this article was nominated for AfD TWO MINUTES after its initial creation. This is, in my opinion, entirely unfair on editors who wish to improve wikipedia by writing new articles. The AfD page lists several stages which editors should go through before nominating articles and I doubt they were carried out by the nominator in the 120 seconds he took to bring this here. Nick mallory (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Time taken for nomination is not the issue, notability is the issue. Moreover a long time have past since the article's creation, but no more references are given till now by which its notability can be established. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • More comment: "It's a serious book" do you have any reliable source by which you can prove that it's a serious book? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, have you actually looked at the article recently? Nick mallory (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I say weak because I'm not completely convinced the article passes WP:BK as yet. But it will pass once cleaned up, and as has been pointed out sufficient time hasn't been given before AfD commenced. I've also thought that the book might not need its own page as such and just having a reference to it at the Bloom article might be sufficient? I also feel that the nominators rational of the article being non-encyclopedic was not valid. Sting_au Talk 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am again saying that the time factor is not a issue here. Take note that enough time has past since the creation of the article, but more references are not given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've used cite web per WP:CIT to better display a couple of the references that Nick mallory added. There is a couple more to do but its late here and I'm off to bed. Yawn. So if someone else wants to do them then go ahead :-)Sting_au Talk 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you Sting. I'd be interested to know why the nominator doesn't think reviews in The Washington Post and Boston Globe count as secondary sources. Nick mallory (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
        • 137 reviews on Amazon is an impressive number. I feel that since the book draws a lot of attention, even protests, it is worth keeping. Especially aftre the article was thoroughly cleaned.lkitross (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Time most definitely is an issue, if your claim is non-notability (as you state above). If you nominated the article 120 seconds after its creation, it is hard for the closing administrator to believe that you made any attempt whatsoever to look for sources yourself, and as such can reasonably discount entirely your argument that the subject is not notable, for being clearly based upon no research whatsoever. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says to look for sources yourself before nominating an article for deletion, as do Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability (and indeed User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage). This means you, as well as everyone else. Looking for sources is not Somebody Else's Problem. You are not being any help to Wikipedia, nor any help to AFD, by not doing so. Whereas if you had looked for sources you'd have improved the encyclopaedia at the same time. Please always look for sources yourself from now on. Uncle G (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The good Uncle makes an excellent point; I however observe that the nomination was made with an automated tool, NPWatcher. The fact remains that many Wikipedians take part in newpage patrolling, and while this nomination is clearly in bad faith, it begs the question of whether this kind of patrolling is appropriate for Wikipedia altogether. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. per improvements to article that establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable book by a notable author; appropriate remedy is to improve the article. RJC ^Talk 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sources currently present in the article demonstrate notability of the book, even if they're biased towards the contraversy. Plus a wrist-slap to the nominator for bring this to AfD two minutes after the article was created, while edits were still being made, in direct violation of policy and guidelines. Show good faith and let the editors do the work before wiping it off the servers. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The book is clearly notable. The article obviously needs some work, but that's what ought to be done, not nominating it here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I really can't be bothered to explain why, because the nominator can't be bothered to explain why it should be deleted. Shouldn't we have a speedy deletion process to get rid of AfDs where no sensible reason is given for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 31 December 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.