Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Lonely Resurrection

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 no consensus. Votes are equally split (2 keep and 2 delete), with reasonable arguments from both sides. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 23:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Lonely Resurrection[edit]

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

Neither source here rises to the level of satisfying criterion #1 of WP:NBOOK. (Prod was removed) —swpb^T 12:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found some info gsearching hard rain, ie. Publishers Weekly review [1] - "this captivating follow-up. .. Eisler acknowledges the help of experts in many areas, but it's his own impressive literary skills that make his John Rain such a fascinating, touching and wholly believable character.", Examiner.com review (on wikiblacklist so no url)- "Hard Rain is a fantastic follow up novel to Rain Fall. Once again, Barry Eisler proves to be a master of suspense, thrilling his audience from start to finish. With an original and intriguing plot, complex characters, and flawless execution (no pun in intended) Hard Rain ranks among the best novels that this reviewer has ever had the pleasure of reading.", Library Journal audio review [2] - "Matching Silva for the mix of characterization and action, fast pacing, politics, international settings, hyper-competence, and the richness of background details, Eisler’s “John Rain” series is another set of books to suggest to fans of Silva’s Allon. .. the second book, Hard Rain, read by Dick Hill, might please fans of George Guidall more. Hill and Guidall share an ability to enhance suspense, create believable accents, and maintain a deliberate yet intense pace", a Gumshoe award nominee? - [3] - "At the end of Hard Rain, last year's Gumshoe Award-nominated second book in the series,", and a (New York Times?) bestseller? [4] - "and seven of his John Rain books on the New York Times Bestseller list.", [5] - "Translated into nearly twenty languages, Eisler’s John Rain books won the Barry and Mystery Ink Gumshoe Awards for Best Thriller of the Year; appear on multiple “Best of” lists, and have been optioned for film."? ps. if even half of the reviews on author's website here [6] is correct/track downable(!:)) either this is notable or at the very least a series article should be okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner isn't usable as a RS on here, so we can't count that. January, PW, and LJ are all good and can be used as RS. I wouldn't really consider Wild River Review to be all that usable for establishing notability for this specific book since it talks about the series as a whole. In order to show notability for this specific entry you'd have to show where they discuss this particular book, especially if you're referencing the awards since it doesn't say which book won the awards, just that it won awards. (Sales numbers don't really count towards notability on here except for when it lands on a notable bestseller list.) Now while we can't use the author's site as a RS for the reviews, that does give us something to go with and many of them would be seen as a RS if we can find the review in question, since outlets like Black Belt, Sunday Telegraph, and the London Times are all fairly well respected. My inclination here is that this should be kept and cleaned up - it looks like the sources are out there, they just need to be found and added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for better attention, thus allowing another week of people commenting SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author perhaps as this is still, all in all, questionable for its own notable article aside from the apparent reviews above. Delete if needed also, I'll say, but this is still certainly questionable for solid independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged this as G12 when it was basically just a copy/pasted publisher's synopsis (e.g. from Amazon). Instead of letting it be deleted it was stripped down to a brief description with no sources that doesn't assert notability. Since then, the copyvio has been restored (in part), citing two poor sources. I still think this should['ve] be[en] speedied and redirected to Barry Eisler. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyright violation. If necessary, the copyright violation revisions can be revision deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amazon lists several reviews of the book:
From Publishers Weekly
Rain Fall (2002), Eisler's first book about Japanese-American Vietnam vet John Rain, a hired assassin for government agencies in Tokyo and Washington, worked so well that the author wisely decided to keep all the elements intact in this captivating follow-up. Once again, the nightscape of Tokyo is painted in beautifully dark tones, scored to the live jazz of the clubs where Rain drinks from a menu of expensive single malt whiskeys. ... Eisler acknowledges the help of experts in many areas, but it's his own impressive literary skills that make his John Rain such a fascinating, touching and wholly believable character.

"[A] relentlessly likeable protagonist." —San Francisco Chronicle

"A James Bond-style secret agent cum hit man." —Booklist

"A fascinating, touching and wholly believable character." —Publishers Weekly

“... a superlative job... entertaining and suspenseful enough to keep you turning the pages as fast as your eyes can follow.” —Chicago Sun Times
These sources, in addition to the ones mentioned by Coolabahapple and Tokyogirl79, demonstrate that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 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.