Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Drugs & Superheroes

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Drugs & Superheroes[edit]

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

There is no reason tho think this book notable. It is so far in a total of one library, according to WorldCat [1] .

The article has been here for a year; it has had about 40 edits, about 1/3 of them by experienced editors here, who have fixed trivial details, but apparently never thought of looking at the actual notability. See above for the article on the author (it's his only published book). DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the article's length, the book is actually fairly non-notable. I can't find any coverage in sources that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll endorse deletion of the author's article as well. This is a pretty clear case of WP:PUFFERY when it comes down to it- this is an incredibly non-notable work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little digging and sure enough, this was written by Reddish himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I wrote it as an admirer of David Reddish's writing. See below or the discussino page for David Reddish Froggie19Dude (talk)

Delete as vanity. Fails WP:NBOOK despite claims to its having started the new subgenre of fiction "geek out lit". "Greek out lit" is a term supposedly created by website GuerrillaBookworm, and used at least once by Ian Denning in his blog here. But the term existed long before this book was published, see the 10 September 2009 blog Michael. "sexism in comics? i can hardly believe it!".. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of 02:59, 14 July, (UTC), the article's original author has removed the claim about the "new" subgenre. --Bejnar (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ does not meet WP:NBOOK. LuigiToeness (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's released two books, including one earlier this month. I went in and edited to conform to neutrality policy and formatting. And while I admire his work he and I are not the same person. Reliable sources are here:[2], and here [3]Froggie19Dude (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge you've swayed me Froggie19Dude. But this should be merged into the author's article. LuigiToeness (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you LuigiToeness! As far as the merger goes, should I do as much, or does that fall to another level of Wiki user? Froggie19Dude (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do anything yet. Both articles are at AfD and you should wait to learn the outcomes. (Also, could you try properly indenting your remarks, please? You'll find helpful information at WP:THREAD.) Msnicki (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Started merge discussion on respective pages.Froggie19Dude (talk)

Delete. Sources offered are a hodgepodge of WP:PRIMARY and WP:QUESTIONABLE sources including interviews with and articles by the author (all obviously primary) and pure junk. Completely fails to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A merge to the author's article does not make sense when the main claim to notability for the author is that he wrote this book. Rather circular. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Additional sources cited in discussion on author page. The claim to notability is that the author has written several books and essays, not just this one.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By "several books", you mean two, yes? -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Two published, along with essays and I think a webseries. As previously discussed on the author page, I'll make a few observations in support of merge or retention of both articles here: Regarding the Bent-Con pages [bent-con.org], if you read the mission statement, policies and details regarding the group, they are not-for-profit and confirm Reddish as a noted guest. Not just anyone can get featured status, panel discussions or be used in publicity, which Reddish does all three as evidenced by the Youtube documentary in which he's featured prominently. The publicity in question advertises the convention with Reddish as a guest, not his work. Regarding The Daily Journal, if you pay attention to the formatting of the article, it is classified by the newspaper as a "news expose'," not a lifestyle interview or people profile, both of which are other categories listed on the website and, I would assume, the print edition. Nowhere does the author of the piece say he interviewed Reddish, and while he does offer quotes, he also makes assertions about Reddish's life that are unsourced, even within the sources discussed here. He could have drawn from other interviews, or interviewed Reddish's friends, family, collaborators, etc. Another article at The Daily Journal mentions a speaking engagement and Reddish's two novels and cites nothing from the author personally. Reddish's essay for The Advocate establishs him a writer for a major publication, and if you examine the full article which mentions his novel, it places it in a greater context as a work as noteworthy as major music, film and television entries. It does not appear that Reddish personally had anything to do with his mention of his novel in The Advocate, nor did he write or coerce his name into Bent-Con programming or publicity. Upon reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines for notablility and sourching, the reviews from websites MyTakeOnTV.com and PinkisthenewBlog.com should be acceptable under Wiki guidlines since both Courtney K. and Trent Vanegas exert full editorial control over their content. Wikipedia rules state that opinion blogs are unreliable regarding opinions of people, but not their work. Moreover, the previously discussed article at gay.net qualifies as WP:SECONDARY because, while it does interpolate original research in the form of an interview, the preceeding paragraph is a review of the novel not based on anything said in the interview itself. Thus, the cited sources of The Daily Journal, MyTakeonTV.com, Bent-Con.org, PinkistheNewBlog.com, gay.net and The Advocate should all be permissable under Wiki guidelines because they are independent, edited sources providing significant coverage or attestation to the notability of Reddish and his work. Also, having reviewed Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, both The Daily Journal article and the Gay.net article also qualify as reliable sources on another level: Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis. Ergo, even if an interview appears as part of the article, if it is merged with original writing, and in this case, both articles are, it qualifies as WP: SECONDARY. In terms of notability, we have discussed significant coverage here, including independent and reliable sources that would suggest Reddish, his novel Sex, Drugs & Superheroes or come combined entry of the two should be included here.Froggie19Dude (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage in third-party WP:RS sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Before dismissing a source, it might benefit all of us involved in this discussion if a user might detail the reasons why a specific outlet is ineligible for use as WP:RS. It could lead to a more informed and precise discussion of the matters at hand.Froggie19Dude (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TokyoGirl79's detective work is compelling. This is a non-notable book whose article was written by a sockmaster with a COI. Even if it were notable, this would probably need to be rewritten from scratch, and I would support deletion per WP:TNT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 16 July 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.