Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After the Blast

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. General consensus - Merge articles if appropriate. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the Blast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related page because of the closely related lack of notability of the book and the author :

Neither the book nor its author is notable. for the book, worldcat lists fewer than20 copies; he'san Australian, and although the National Library ofAustralia lists the book in their catalog, they do not even have a copy -- two years after publication. There is a prize, but it's very minor. I have not found reviews, though probably some brief notices exist. As for the author, he has no possible notability except for the books. The notes in Australian newspapers about his war service are trivial. And even if the book were notable, being the author of a single book is not usually enough to meet WP:AUTHOR.

I'm listing these together because of the close relationship. The editor has contributed only these two articles, plus a spammy link to the book in Security Detachment Iraq (Australia) which has now beene removed at least two times DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and reads like a press release for the book and author. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The book was reviewed in a major newspaper here, and from memory elsewhere. It was also published by a major Australian publisher, and was widely available (I bought my copy from a "big box" retailer, and found it to be a good read). The statement that the NLA doesn't have a copy appears to be an error: it has two - not that this is a sign of notability. That said, I think that Wikipedia's notability criteria for books are rubbish, and won't support retaining an article on the book unless better sourcing is available. Mr Callender does not appear to be independently notable at present. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as I concur there's simply nothing for genuine substance beyond what's simply here as a few sections and sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book has full lenght reviews in Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The West Australian and Cooma Monaro Express. That's enough for WP:BOOKCRIT#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie, Nick (29 July 2015), "Book review. After the Blast: An Australian Army Officer in the firing line", Cooma Monaro Express

Quekett, Malcolm (27 July 2015), "Army veteran shares life skills", The West Australian

Cleary, Paul (27 July 2015), "Battlefield experiences hold lessons on life and death", The Australian

and redirect/smerge the promotional bio to the book, best both covered in one article. User:Nick-D, User:SwisterTwister, User:Kierzek and User:DGG. Any thoughts on the new sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a url, fixed a title, not quite the full length review I first thought but coverage none the less. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My earlier statement about not being in NLA was based only on the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog -- it has in my experience been quite relliable, but this seems to have been an error in its data. The West Australian article is a promotional interview about the book that had been recently published, with almost nothing about the book itself. ; I cannot see the others. But Cooma is I think not a national newspaper. The Australian is, but from the title it seems to be just like the article in the West Australian. the propensity of even the best newspapers to accept PR has made nonsense out of some our our earlier assumptions about reliable sources. If we do keep one article, it would normally be about the author, who might possibly write another book; but that article is so full of unencyclopedic detail that it might be better to have one on the book. If

Additionally (actually, I think primarily) if this had not been part of an obvious promotional campaign, I would probably have supported a merge once the NLA holdings had been identified. But the material here was an example of editing for a promotional purpose, and this should be discouraged as strongly as possible--at the very least, be resolving decisions in favor of deletion (personally, I'd rather delete them all unless the subject is famous, but there is not yet consensus for that). DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Nick-D pointed out, the weak requirements of WP:BOOKCRIT seem to encourage this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources provided by duffbeerforme establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should address Coffee's relist question above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Garth Callender only, Merge and Redirect After the Blast to Garth Callender. We have an article about a person with a story and the book he wrote about that story. They're inseparable. There's more out there about him than there is about the book -- except insofar as one can assume that when he talks about himself, he's also talking about the book, hence my !vote to keep the article about him. There are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. In no particular order: The Australian, The West Australian, Sydney Morning Herald review, Conversations with Richard Fidler (ABC.net.au), [Late Night Live (also ABC.net.au), Men's Style (via PressReader -- not sure if this is an EL problem), 60 Minutes segment (having trouble finding more than poor sites referencing this -- "Heroes of Ravenshoe/After the Blast/Switched at Birth"), 6PR (radio), apparently won (Bunbury Mail) a minor-middling (non-notable) literary award called the Nib Waverley, The Age and SMH published an excerpt.... It's not a slam dunk, granted, but I think it gets by GNG. There are other sources with smaller bits of coverage. I recognize some of these are primary and therefore varied in the extent they're useful for the article, but I think they all contribute to a sense of notability/coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the book is notable. It has it's reviews that appear in major Aust newspapers. Many other references to it. It satisfies at least 2 of the requirements to get it past the line. Karl Twist (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have at least two notable reviews (that I have found) e.g. [1] and per others stating similar above. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both pass WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR. DrStrauss talk 19:36, 2 March 2017 (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.