Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello Sailor (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 keep. Consensus has been developed, and reliable sources have been shown proving the article's notability. —Dark ^talk 13:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sailor (novel)[edit]

Delete - there is an absence of reliable sources which offer significant coverage of this novel, meaning that it fails notability guidelines. Prod removed on the basis of the notability of the author, Eric Idle, but notability is not inherited so the unquetionable notability of Idle does not in any way impart notability onto this book. Otto4711 (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability is sometimes inherited. Per WP:N/BOOKS: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". I think that applies here. L'Aquatique[review] 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this may seem like splitting hairs, but I don't think notability is transitive across categories. in other words, Idle is principally noted for his work in the Python troupe--almost exclusively. That fame and note might not apply to his fiction and non-fiction after he stopped making python works (or otherwise apart from those works). If, in some cases, the work becomes famous as a result of the author, we will have sources to work with (making this discussion unnecessary). If, as it might be in this case, that fame does not translate into widespread notice of the work, are we to use the NB exception here? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to the spirit of WP:NB to apply it to famous authors whose books would not meet WP:N were they published by a relative unknown? Protonk (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Obvious Keep Nominator has been AfDing the entire Monty Python category for God knows what reason, without even attempting to find sourcing for even the most obviously notable subjects. Whatever the point, it's a waste of a lot of editors' time and a potential loss of articles for Wikipedia. When will the Wikipedia community recognize that this type of abuse of AfD is on a par with vandalism? It should be punishable as such. Dekkappai (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse others of vandalism. Assume good faith. I would be impressed to see a substantiation of the accusation that Otto has nominated the entire monty python category for deletion, I surely would have noticed. Also, please state a reason why this is an obvious keep apart from the apparent malign intent of the nominator which you have asserted. If this article is such an obvious keep and such a huge potential loss, I'm sure it won't be hard to provide some argument as to why it should stay, no? Protonk (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Protonk. I'd had a few drinks last night, and spoke my true thoughts and feelings rather than adhering to good old Wikipedian values like "civility" and "AfG". Of course, the burden, the work, the time to be spent researching is all upon those of us who dislike censorship and the needless removal of content. A deletionist shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities as checking first to see if he can find any sourcing before claiming that there is none to be found. If I had any brains and wanted to become a valued Wikipedian, I'd just get tired of these frivolous AfDs and either ignore them, or-- better yet-- start deleting other people's work myself. But then it must be so much work to slap an AfD tag on articles as random and completely unrelated at Mr Praline, Mr Creosote, and whatever other other unrelated and random Python articles he's nominated-- I had never edited in the area until I was forced to due to my dislike for censorship, needless removal of content, and these AfDs, so I may have missed some. How about this: If I am unable to find any sourcing for the article in the next two days, I'll offer the nominator an apology? Otherwise I stand by my honest words above, even if they were spoken in an un-Wikipedianly blunt manner. And Otto? He'll continue on his deletion spree. And why not? Deletion of content seems to be valued at Wikipedia these days so much more than contribution of content... Dekkappai (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you offer an apology right now for your incredibly shitty behaviour of attacking the nominator instead of addressing the nomination?
And just so that you are aware, I did search for sources that offered significant coverage of this book. I found all the usual one-sentence-in-400-page-books passing mentions that are explicitly excluded as reliable sources at WP:N that note that yes, Idle wrote the book and make no other comment about it. If these trivial mentions were looked at other than through the distorted lens of Python fandom, an objective assessor would come to the obvious conclusion that the book itself is not notable. But because Everything touched by a Python is sacred on Wikipedia, the stampede of emotional fanboy keeps overwhelm logic and reason.
As for tagging me with the pejorative "deletionist" label, I call bullshit on that. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go a little further, Protonk. Again, if I cannot source or find anything notable to say about the book, I will offer Otto an apology. However, if I can, and the arrogance, ignorance and destructive behaviour of this editor stands unpunished, I will take it as an approval-- one more approval-- by the Wikipedian community of this sort of thuggish, vandalistic use of the AfD process. Obviously, this isn't the most "notable" subject on Wikipedia, but I've wasted far too much time fighting against the destruction of content by loud-mouthed thugs here, at the expense of the real reason I came here-- to research and add content. Since I came to Wikipedia out of a love of researching and writing, this continuing approval of the destructionist agenda makes it more than clear that Wikipedia is not a place for an editor like me. I would be a fool not to leave a project whose agenda I am working against, and so-- if I can source the article and find something "notable" to say about it-- I will leave. Dekkappai (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. Just so we're clear, I'm not the person replying directly above. How about you step away from this conversation. Like before you continue to say things that will be considered WP:UNCIVIL and personal attacks. If you want to research and add content, please do so. We all do. I do. Otto does. Every editor does. the fact that we are carrying out a process that exists in wikipedia for a reason does not stop you from doing any of that. If you have some evidence based argument about the nomination, we are all ears. IF you continue to call me, otto, or anyone else a thug, a vandal or any other unpleasant names, then don't let the door hit you on the way out. Remember. This deletion process isn't a personal attack directed at you or any editor. It isn't the result of some evil plot Otto has hatched in his orbiting deletionist space lair. It is the opinion of the nominator that the article in question fails to meet some core wikipedia guidelines and/or policies. Nothing more. If the community disagrees, the article stays. If the community agrees and the reasoning is sound, the article goes. The outcome may not reflect what we wish wikipedia could be. That is to be expected. Please don't assume that dissonance is the result of some conspiracy on the part of some editors unless you have some concrete evidence. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per L'Aquatique above. It would be astonishing if a novel by Eric Idle received no critical attention when published in 1975. (His The Road to Mars was reviewed/panned in the Times, the Guardian, etc etc - see complete-review.com.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I know I said I'd work on this for 2 days, but I quit. I devoted an hour of my very limited editing time, and here are a few points of "Notability" I found (I don't know if any one of these points satisfied the letter of "Notability" in Wiki-law, but, frankly, I don't give a shit): 1) published novel by major public figure. 2) Reviewed in at least one major literary journal. 3) Considered by Michael Palin to be part (a small part) of Idle's dissatisfaction with the group, and decision to leave it.
Now I am tired of being told what articles I have to work on through this kind of AfD hostage-taking. Basically, we're told by the nominator, "YOU work on this, or it gets deleted." In spite of all the "fanboy" talk, I'm really not that big a Python fan anymore-- haven't even seen them in probably 20 years-- and I never worked on any Python article until this thug started nominating them for deletion. I know as well as any thinking, English-speaking person should that Eric Idle is a major public figure, and that a published novel by him is bound to be notable. I've seen thugs like this one continuously abuse Wiki process and then get promoted to Admin. If this is how Wikipedia is supposed to run, then I'm sick of it, and I'm gone. Dekkappai (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of pete. You aren't being held hostage and neither is the article. The AfD process (which is no more a creation of Otto or me than any other process on wikipedia) runs 5 days. Anyone who wants to can find sources. If we can't find them then the article doesn't meet WP:N (or at the last version of the article I say, WP:V). That's it. If we do find them, then it does. End of story. I'm going to ask you one last time. Stop making personal attacks against Otto. Protonk (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only spurious reasons are presented for the deletion of a notable book by a notable author, crucially related to one of the most notable comedy groups of the late 20th century. Badagnani (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expansion of the article by Dekkappai should make this an obvious keep. Article now cites eight sources, which should be more than enough to satisfy the concerns of the nominator. Notable author, and a notable aspect of his career. PC78 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for stunningly obvious reasons. JJL (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Kelly ^hi! 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as is quite often the case in Python-related AFDs, the keep !voters are allowing their fandom of Monty Python to influence their assessment of the article along with its supposed sources. An objective review of the so-called "sources" attached to the article demonstrates that they are not substantively about the book itself but are instead about the author, and mention the book in passing if at all. I do hope that the closing admin takes the time to review the "sources" that are supposedly asserting that this book is notable, rather than simply counting up the pro-Python fanboy !votes in declaring "consensus." Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, all reliable sources are irrelevant unless the information being sourced provides the main corpus of the reference material. The AfD questions are 1) is this topic notable, and 2) does it have a minimum standard of content which is appropriately sourced. It is and it has more than enough sourced content regarding its publishing and historical context to plainly pass based on a cursory glance alone. If you think that our reliable sources policy is too liberal, however, that's an argument to be taken there instead of being pointy. Keep, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, remember-- attack the argument, not the arguer. Whether or not we like Monty Python has absolutely no bearing on this. What does have bearing is that the subject has been shown, using Wikipedia's policy, to be notable. L'Aquatique[review] 04:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while I think Otto can tone it down, I'm inclined to interpret the wording of the votes above in the same fashion. IT doesn't matter to me, though. If fervor for a subject helps people fill out the encyclopedia, great! Protonk (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, while I can't condone Dekkappai's outbursts above, your own dismissal of the keep voters as "Python fanboys" is equally unhelpful, not to mention wildly inaccurate. Is it not possible to assume that, having read the article and assessed its sources, we have found the subject to be notable on its own merits and worth keeping? What I also find unhelpful is the wording of your nomination. What is meant by "an absence of reliable sources"? It's all too easy to assume that you have simply come across an article with no sources and promptly brought it here. Did you search for sources beforehand? If you did, then say so in your nomination, and present your findings for the consideration of others. Also bear in mind that a relativley obscure book from the 1970s can't reasonably be expected to have an abundance of online sources. PC78 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New included sources are more than sufficient to meet WP:N. Protonk (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Only appears to be one source giving significant coverage (the review from "The Times Literary Supplement"). The others seem to be trivial mentions of the book (not clear what citation 3 actually is). However, I think we should take into account Idle's notability, and the apparent notability of the book in the dissolution of the python team (if the reference from the palin book is accurate - I don't have access to a copy.) Also, some allowance should be made for the fact that the book was published before the internet took off, so other sources may be available, but difficult to find. Silverfish (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Exactly per Silverfish. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability from sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 12 July 2008 (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.