Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune's Garden

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 due to lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Garden[edit]

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

Book that is not notable - Google search turned up no sources, text links to book sellers' sites. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is valid. A google search of "Neptunes Garden Jeremy Gosnell" turns up links to all major book sellers. Barnes and Noble, Books a Million, Amazon and many others are carrying and selling this book. Also, the search I recommended will bring up the book's official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.228.185 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.125.228.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, people selling the book are not considered to be sources, and the site of the book itself is not considered justification for notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment In addition to a variety of book sellers a Google search, or search using any search engine will bring up independent review websites that have reviewed this book or offer a listing regarding it. Here are links to two:

[1][2] Also a search on the publisher's website brings up a listing of not only the book but information regarding the author. I have provided that link as well.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.228.185 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.125.228.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One Vote Per Customer, Please. None of those reviews come from a nationally known source. Once again, the publisher's or author's website is not considered to be a source for determining notability. Third Party Sources are needed. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please visit the book's listing at bookreview.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Here is a link to another independent third party source: http://likeitido.com/2010/03/11/neptunes-garden-by-jeremy-gosnell/7656 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) — Aquaman2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

According to the WP:Notability (books), "The book [must have] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Most of the reviews mentioned are either services that anyone can submit their book to be reviewed, or trivial, passing mentions. Since this is a self-published book, it most likely is not notable. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A formal complaint has been sent against user Fiftytwo thirty based on comments made

*Comment It's clear that you don't understand Wikipedia's procedures. Fiftytwo thirty is simply applying the normal Wikipedia standards for inclusion of a book in this encyclopedia. You can read those standards here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note If any "formal complaint" has been filed against me, I have received no word of it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published book via [4]. No independent recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So does the fact that this book has received multiple reader reviews on various retailer websites not qualify as independent recognition considering these readers were totally independent and unrelated to the author or publisher of the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.124.226 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — 148.66.124.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I checked some of the links that are given in this article as well as searching the book's author and title online. It appears that there are several reviews by readers and articles online regarding the story. These all appear independent of the publisher or author. According to this criteria, " The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary" - I feel the article should be kept. I do feel as more independent sources of review or mention become available they should be posted as external links in the book's wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D c l8319 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — D c 18319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "Reader reviews" and "online reviews" do not count as independent or reliable sources - because they are anonymous and could be posted by anyone, including the author himself/herself or the publisher. Note that the rules specify PUBLISHED works; that is so that independence can be assured. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the proliferation of newly-created single-purpose accounts coming here to support the book is not very convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The book is self published via iUniverse, which anyone can do, and I laud anyone who takes the effort to author a book. But a google archive news search[5] has no cites for "neptune's garden" and gosnell. I can't find any mainstream press coverage including local press. The author has done a good job of getting the book out there for reviews by random bloggers and friends, but this is very common for this kind of book, and unfortunately these are not the kind of sources that we mean when we say "reliable sources." I say this kindly to the author and interested parties as an editor who is a pretty strong inclusionist (meaning I am in favor of expansive coverage on Wikipedia), but wikipedia is not the place for an article on this book, at least at this point. When you hit a best seller list and/or get some newspaper books reviews, maybe things will be different.--Milowent (talk) 15:57, 30 March 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.