Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled

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. Chick Bowen 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled[edit]

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

PROD was removed by the author. No explanation was given at the time, though a later edit summary from the same editor said "This a new novel that is being reviewed at this time. It should not be deleted." However, that is not a reason for not deleting. The reason given in the PROD was "not clear how this meets WP:NBOOKS. The only reviews I'm finding are on the back cover of the book." The stuff I have found has been dominated by (1) www.colinprestonrockedandrolled.com, sites selling the book (e.g. Amazon) and other non-independent sources, and (2) blogs, Wikipedia, and other non-reliable sources. There is only one apparently independent source given in the article, and, apart from doubtful reliability (looks bloggy to me), it gives only very brief coverage of the book. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the original proder and my statement above stands. I have also had difficulty finding any sources outside of primary ones (which appear to be created by the publisher) or blogs of questionable reliability. It might be notable at some later date but now is not that time apparantly. RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely not true that the only reviews are on the back cover of the book. If you are going to push to delete an article you really need to be accurate. (see Knight Reader review, it does not appear in the book at all) The book has already been mentioned by two independent blogs within the last four weeks. (Knight Reader and Meredith Sue Willis Books For Readers # 139) This fact makes the book notable already. The novel is also being reviewed by top publications such as Kirkus Reviews at this time. Should new novels be removed from Wikipedia while they are in the process of being reviewed by publications such as Kirkus Reviews? I think not. This novel deals with important themes in American cultural history such as the Vietnam War, the 1960's, the Beatles and John Lennnon. It seems unfair and ironic ("free encyclopedia") that Wikipedia would discriminate against independent authors in any way. Established publishing companies are able to get reviews more quickly for their books because of their status and connections. This does not make their books more legitimate or better written than books by indie authors. Wikipedia needs to recognize how difficult it is for independent authors to get reviews and be a little bit patient. Toddport (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on a couple of blogs does not "make the book notable already". See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to understand why.
Being "in the process of being reviewed" is not enough: we need evidence that a subject has already received significant coverage, not unsupported assertions that it is being considered, and will receive coverage in a while.
The importance of the themes which the book deals with does not make the book notable. I could easily write a few sentences on those important themes right now, but my scribbles would not be notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopaedia article.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything. Wikipedia's policy is to have articles only on subjects which have established notability by receiving coverage in reliable sources. Yes, that is "discriminating" against subjects which have not received such coverage, but it is Wikipedia's policy. You can become active on Wikipedia and propose changing that policy if you like, but the present deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator who will assess it on the basis of current policy, so saying that you don't agree with the policy is unlikely to influence the outcome. If you want the article kept then the thing to do is to provide evidence that it satisfies the current notability criteria. If you can do so then I will very happily withdraw my nomination, but "has been mentioned in two blogs" and "is being reviewed now" do not take us in that direction: you should look at Wikipedia:Notability to see what will do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched myself for anything in reliable sources which could establish notability for this self-published book, per the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). It simply isn't there, as JamesBWatson outlined above. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not free advertising space. It's not the place to raise the profile of a person, product, etc. in the hope that it might get noticed, but to cover those who have already made their mark. A deletion discussion is not a reflection on the artistic merit or accomplishment of the article's subject. It is based solely on the notability criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews has posted a review of Colin Preston Rocked And Rolled on their website today. Toddport (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a Kirkus review of an independently published book is not evidence of notability. Kirkus charges "indie" authors for these reviews. [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews is one of the most respected review publications in the publishing industry. A Kirkus indie review is always an objective critique and a large percentage are in fact negative reviews. Agents and editors respect Kirkus Reviews. Toddport (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddport, this isn't about the merits of the book, whether the reviews were good or bad, or even how objective the reviews are. The fact that Kirkus doesn't review indie books, unless the author pays them to and by their own description "The Kirkus Indie program gives independent authors a chance to obtain an unbiased, professional review of their work, written in the same format as a traditional Kirkus review" (my bolding), means that this + 2 reviews in blogs is simply not enough to pass the criteria. Had the book received a star rating from Kirkus, it might have made a slightly better case. But as it is no. You also should be aware that the notability criteria are normally very strictly followed for articles on self-published books in Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I was responding to this version of Toddport's comment, which he has subsequently edited. Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2011 (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.