Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cibola Burn

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 redirect to Leviathan Wakes#Sequels. (or wherever). There's probably no issue with draft/user-spacing, either, but I just rounded as it seems there's rough consensus against keeping. Once it's released, it seems there's no current argument against undoing the redirect and/or moving out of draft/user-space. slakr^\ talk / 06:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cibola Burn

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

Article about a non-notable, unpublished book. The only possibly reliable source that I could find [1] barely mentions the book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladeborn (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC) There are numerous Publisher related articles about this forthcoming release, so I'm not sure I understand the statement by Mr X that there is nothing out there about this book. Articles include [2], [3], [4], and [5]. The page does not refer to these articles because they are not academic and are not directly referenced against the publisher's website, Orbit. In addition, this book is available for pre-order at Amazon, Fishpond (NZ), Waterstones, Bookdepository, Booksamillion, and many others around the world. Certainly I think this presence does tend to question the speculation offered above that the "the only reliable source" is the original release reference on the page from Cinema Blend. This book hits the stands in about 8 weeks - so why would we be aggressive about deleting its initial Wikipedia entry at this time? Certainly I think I could understand it if the book had failed to arrive as-advertised and had been MIA for months or years past it's published release date. But that's not the case.[reply]

Please read WP:BKCRIT which explains the notability criteria for books. Most of the sources that you provided are closely connected, for example, the book sellers. They merely establish that the book exists. The Goodreads blurb was written by the author. The nikihawkes.com blog seems to be a personal blog. The SF Signal article merely mentions the book. The Publishers Weekly article doesn't list an author, which suggests that it may be press release generated or an advertorial (I'm not sure, but I'm suspicious). What are needed are independent sources that have nothing to gain, and that have editorial oversight. See WP:RS. I'm open to have my mind changed if anyone can demonstrate that any of the five notability criteria have been met. @Bladeborn: your signature should be placed at the end of your post.- Mr X 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep, based on the starred Publishers Weekly review for this book [6] and the fact that it's part of a series that seems to have gotten consistent coverage in reliable sources. Bladeborn, please note that the book's availability at Amazon and other vendors does not make an argument for notability, and please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) for more explanation of the sorts of information that would be relevant here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read the referenced WP:BKCRIT, however, all the books in this series have similar coverage and began with similar early references/pages, and they were not precipitously deleted a few weeks before the publication date. This book is highly anticipated and widely publicized, even if the publicizing locations are promulgating the publisher's supplied content. In publishing terms, the ability to pre-order a media item is, in fact, significant. Only once a media item is finished and is ready for shipment does it move to pre-order - most pre-order items are ready in-warehouse for shipment about a month or more before what the media industry calls the Street Date (release date). That means this book is already in boxes ready to ship even as I type. That is, unlike a simple 'coming soon' entry, which speculates that the item might be finished by the writer(s) sometime soon, and it could end-up never coming out, as has happened with several George R.R. Martin publication announcements and Melanie Rawn publication of "The Captal's Tower". The Captal's Tower has has a Wiki page that is not flagged for deletion despite being a 'coming soon' for about fifteen years and having no possible publication date, because Melanie hasn't written it - which on the arguements placed here, seems to put it squarely in the territory of "Not notable". With that in mind, I suppose my observation would be that perhaps most of the SciFi/Fabtasy books with Wiki-page entries would therefore similarly be considered 'not notable' and thousands more should be flagged for deletion, but I'm noting that they aren't. I suppose my position is that this series has already received substantial coverage, is well received, and the latest book (Cibola Burn) is highly anticipated by readers, and the authors are also well liked popular authors whose bibliographies will be incomplete if this page is deleted; ergo, I propose that this book's is 'notable' and its impending release, well attested by it's pre-order status (as previously explained), patently place it equal to, or higher, on the WP:BKCRIT scale than many other works which are already present on Wikipedia and not under threat of deletion. Personally speaking, I don't have a dog in this fight. I wrote the page to keep Wikipedia up-to-date with the current state of this well liked series, because the book is about to ship, and because people will look for it on Wikipedia - I know I did. I have no objection to Wikipedia being out-of-date and incomplete in this particular matter if that's what's really wanted, but it does seem a little pedantic to me given the context of the book, its predecessors in the series, and the authors involved. Bladeborn (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't been acknowledged by anyone anxious to delete this book, is the fact that Daniel J. Abraham (the principle author behind the "James S.A. Corey" pen-name) is a significant SciFi author and nominee for both the Hugo and Nebula awards, and that the Expanse series has been picked-up for TV adaptation by the screenwriters for Iron Man[7]. If you'd like, I can add this to the page, but I thought the identity of the author was well enough established to not require verbose repetition. I'm having difficulty convincing myself to see this latest part of the series as being in any way less 'notable' than all the others in the series, or than many of its contemporaries. Bladeborn (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the book in this article has to stand on its own and perhaps it will in the future. It can't inherit notability from other books in the series or the author's notability unless the author's body of work has been a common subject of scholarly study (example: Mark Twain). One option that you may wish to consider is to USERFY the article until the book's notability can stand on its own. Also, readers don't really loose anything if the mention of the book is included in the author article or an article listing his works.- Mr X 21:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the application of the standard in this interpretation. I cite the WP:BKCRIT, which explicitly states "typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." This book is so widely blogged-about in the SciFi community that it is patently highly "anticipated", making it 'notable' in its own right. In addition to which both the publisher's own announcement of the book as well as the multiple alternate locations provide such "strong evidence that the book will be published", the announcement of this book in September being used also as the vehicle for announcing the entire series is to be adapted for a TV Pilot, along with the author being a Hugo and Nebula Award nominee, all seem adequate to meet the requirements set forth in WP:BKCRIT. I think this author is being targeted with a speciously pedantic application of WP:BKCRIT that does not hold-up given who he is, this series' prominence in the SciFi community, and most especially when compare to the other extant and long-standing content at Wikipedia. Let's examine a case study on the application of these 'rules': [8]: I use this example reluctantly because I have first-hand experience with it. This page has been in existence for 8 years without a single tagging for deletion despite the book never even having been started in 1998 when it was first 'announced' as forthcoming. That's 16 years ago, so when this page was added to Wikipedia in 2008, the book has already been non-existent for 10 years. The Wiki-page has been updated many times. Yet the author herself told me in an email exchange some ten or more years ago that she has no idea what the story line of book was going to be. Captal's Tower will NEVER be written, it has no contract with a publisher, and it has no target date. Yet it has remained an unchallenged Wiki article despite it's non-existence, in total defiance of the apparently unwavering demand to adhere to a very narrow application of WP:BKCRIT for 8 years. I'm kind of not finding the interpretive application of WP:BKCRIT and the argument for deleting Mr Abraham's new book page, a real book that is widely anticipated and about to be a TV Series, credible as an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladeborn (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, much of the coverage seems to be in blogs. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source because anyone can write one and the vast majority undergo no editorial process, making them self-published and unverifiable sources. This is generally why places such as Goodreads aren't usable as a reliable source in any context, as anyone can post a review or comment and as far as general editing goes, it's not that hard to achieve "librarian" status and edit the book. Not to mention that just being on that site doesn't give notability, as almost anyone can add a book to the website and it's kind of considered (at best) a database-esque place ala IMDb. As far as the existence of other articles go, the existence of other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) does not mean that any given article should be kept. All it could mean is that the article has not yet been merged or deleted entirely. In most cases the article referenced generally fails notability guidelines and in almost every instance the page is actually deleted, which is generally the opposite of what the editor is trying to achieve by mentioning it. I've actually redirected the article you've pointed out, as it did fail WP:NBOOK and never should have had a separate article in the first place. As far as saying that this AfD could be part of an agenda against the author, please assume WP:GOODFAITH. It's very, very rare that an AfD nomination is actually a concentrated effort against a specific person and even hinting at a potential bias without giving some very, VERY solid evidence to back up your concerns will not endear you to incoming editors that could help search for sources. If anything, it makes people more defensive. Now as far as Abraham's notability, please understand that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and you must show individual notability for each specific book by way of individual reviews and coverage for the book specifically. That the series as a whole is possibly getting developed into a TV show helps, but that doesn't really show individual notability for this specific book per se, as it's for the series as a whole and this book is only briefly mentioned. WP:TRIVIAL mentions don't really show notability for a book unless it's talking about something so overwhelmingly notable that it'd keep on that basis alone, and that's usually reserved for when a book wins an overwhelmingly notable award such as a Hugo Award. I'll try to search myself, but so far this just seems too soon for an entry. I think that right now it'd just be better to userfy this and/or redirect it to the main page with history so that when it does release, it can gain more coverage. It might gain more coverage when it releases and big ticket books usually do, but it's never a solid guarantee because a lot can happen inbetween now and the book's actual release. The book could be postponed. A bigger ticket book in the same genre could be released and attention for Cibola Burn could fall to the wayside in favor of publishing about the bigger book (which happens all too frequently). Or someone who was promising coverage in a RS could end up just not actually following through, which is also a frequent occurrence. That happens a lot with authors such as Laurell K Hamilton, where places will promise coverage or it'll seem likely that it'll get coverage, but it doesn't actually come about. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last note to my TL;DNR block of text: a book's popularity (pre or post release) does not automatically give notability either. See WP:ITSPOPULAR for more explanation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Leviathan Wakes#Sequels. WP:TOOSOON.--Auric talk 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James S. A. Corey or The Expanse (series)/userfy. The coverage just isn't here yet and to be honest, you won't be able to keep an article based solely on a trade review, which is really all we have. Is it frustrating, given that it's likely to gain coverage? Yup. I've had dozens of articles on unreleased books/movies I'd love to have in the mainspace, but the coverage just wasn't there. I've got at least four articles currently in the userspace waiting for that additional coverage to appear, so I'd be just as happy as the next person if the guidelines weren't as strict. However they are strict by necessity and while it does keep some "obviously notable" things from coming to the mainspace, it also keeps a lot of "obviously not notable" stuff from the mainspace as well. If there was a bit more coverage we could bend the rules slightly, but the coverage just isn't there yet. Redirecting it will lose nothing, as the history will still be there and we can always unredirect it when the coverage comes about - something I've done often. It's just that we can't guarantee the coverage, as that falls into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory and a LOT can happen between now and a book's release that prevents coverage or even the book's release entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leviathan Wakes#Sequels for now. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:namespace until the thing is released. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2014 (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.