Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Fields

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From The Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It passed a tough Editorial Review by the Stanislaus County Library and was included in its Special Collections Section. I'll go with the opinion of a professional librarian with a Masters degree over an anonymous keyboard commando on wikipedia. What say you.[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPRichard2013 (talk • contribs)

Comment - How does this meet the criteria in WP:NOTBOOK? reddogsix (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being suitable for a library's local collection does not mean the book meets the (rather jargon-named) notability requirements. What is needed for that is multiple reliable secondary sources about the book. The newspaper article is a good start, but not sufficient on its own. (What is more likely is that the existence of a book such as yours (I presume you are the author, DPRichard2013 - see also WP:COI) could be used as evidence that the subject matter of the book is a notable topic worthy of an article here. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page for further discussion. LadyofShalott 06:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are two links to a 1-hour local radio interview on the page the entire hour devoted to discussion of the book. Unfortunately, the Turlock Journal article is the only local paper that can be linked to because the others have paywalls or do not archive stories. Remember, just because you can find it on the Internet does not make it true, just as because you cannot find it on the Internet does not make it false.

I am not the author, but like he is, I am from Turlock and wanted to put up a page about the great book he wrote and about him too. He is a great up and coming author who deserves recognition. I have reached out to him about what is going on here. His opinion of Wikipedia is not a good one and I have to admit that I am beginning to see his point with this nonsense that I am having to go through just to get the article on here.

Your insult of the "local" librarian speaks volumes about the kind of people that appear to be running this show. The County's Librarian is not from the area at all and is in fact a very well educated person with unquestionable credentials - at least unquestionable by those who actually know what they are talking about.

At this point I have devoted all of the time and effort I care to. Do what you will. Leave it up and prove that Wikipedia is truly a place where all knowledge and information is stored without bias. Or take it down and prove Mr. Paolinelli's opinion of you is completely valid.DPRichard2013 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You really need to reread what LadyofShalott wrote. There was no insult against the librarian. The only slight was your misreading of the comment and your response to LadyofShalott. I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before commenting further. reddogsix (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, not enough references included which backs notability, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, including the non-internet available reviews would bolster this article. WorldCat lists no copies (although being notoriously out of date, zero copies is telling}. article created by spa (apart from also creating an article on the author}, maybe a delete/redirect is appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just can’t find anything to show that this passes NBOOK. The newspaper source has two things going against it. The first is that it’s a local source, something that’s greatly depreciated on Wikipedia because local sources are more likely to cover their people as part of a local interest story. Some editors don’t even consider local sources to be ones that can give notability. It’s not something I agree with, but I do think that local sources by themselves will rarely be enough to meet GNG. Sometimes, but rarely. The second is what eliminates it as a notability-giving source, as the paper states that Paolinelli worked for them. This makes the source primary, as the paper is going to want to cover someone who worked for them because it makes them look good by extension. This goes for any source: if Paolinelli worked for them or the book is related to them in some form or fashion (like if the high schools mentioned in the book covered his work), then it cannot establish notability.

Now as far as the radio spots go, I notice that the station is local, which causes the same concerns with local coverage. When it comes to the local library carrying it, circulation by itself does not count towards notability on Wikipedia. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, especially if the book is in many libraries, but it’s never a guarantee. Moving on to the next point: offline sources were mentioned, but the problem with that is that we need to be able to verify that they’d meet Wikipedia’s requirements for RS. Being completely offline doesn’t mean that they’re unusable, but the sources being offline for a book that was published last year isn’t a very good sign. Being paywalled is fine, but we still need to be able to verify them. Until we can verify them, we have to assume that they cannot establish notability and aren’t RS. Normally I'd recommend a redirect, but the author's page is up for deletion so any redirect would rely on the author's page surviving AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must point this out. DPRichard2013, you say that you're not the author but your username gives off the strong impression that you are. I also note that your username is also almost identical to the author's e-mail address. I'm going to block this username as an impersonation, since stuff like that really isn't appropriate. Even if you're not the author, you still need to state your relation to him - are you a friend? Relative? Do you work with or for him? All COI must be made transparent and you can answer this on your userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for its own article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've yet to see even one single reliable source outside of the local area comment on the book at all, either positively, negatively, or neutrally, and I find the above points rather convincing. Just because a particular local publication is reviewing a local matter doesn't mean that it's not worth looking at, yes, but the conflict-of-interest concerns me. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2016 (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.