Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister (novel)

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. Tone 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister (novel)

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

Article appears to be promotional in nature, does not provide proof of notability, and has no reliable sources; all three references are to neo-Nazi websites that do not satisfy WP: RS. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable and fringe.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the novel has been repeatedly ranked alongside major works of literarure and reviewed in several languages. Needs more sources, that is all. 188.220.166.33 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While more sources have been added, none of them satisfy WP: RS, in my opinion. An audio recording of The Political Cesspool? Not a reliable source. A German fringe website called "sezession.de"? Doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Reason Radio Network also looks suspect; it appears to be dedicated wholly or partly to promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and its programming lineup includes the likes of Michael Collins Piper, Jeff Rense and Texe Marrs. The Occidental Quarterly (and Observer) aren't reliable sources either. If you want a second opinion, visit the reliable sources noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that sources are reliable and show any degree of notability. (article of course has problems beyond notability, but thats irrelevant to discussion at hand). likely a self published or vanity press title, but regardless has not broken through anywhere into notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment The credibility of the publishing house is called to question by one of the supposed sources (Occidental Quarterly) "On a separate note—the copy of Mister I read was mysteriously plagued by small typographical errors." And when you go to Iron Sky Publishing, you find that they have a total of 3 works in their catalog. Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The novel has been ranked alongside other novels listed in wikipedia and has been widely reviewed and is available in both the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.218.172 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is very similar to the earlier comment by 188.220.166.33, and neither IP has edited any article not directly related to this novel (thus making both single purpose accounts). Could this be a case of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or attempted vote stacking? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Whois" tracks both to ISPs in Berkshire, Great Britain. Active Banana (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only worldcat copy listed is in the British Library. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would also add that the similarity of the IP address comments suggests sockpuppetry at worst, and comments worth little weight at best. I found the comment by Active Banana regarding the article's subject particularly incriminating...and humorous. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (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.