Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic 2.0

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 redirect to Scott_Meyer_(author)#Magic_2.0. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic 2.0[edit]

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

Non notable books by non notable author. The most widely held of the books, the first, is in only 38 libraries,[1] which is utter non-notability for this sort of fantesy. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from inclusion in libraries, the books have some following online (I discovered them via an io9 blog.) The author, Scott Meyer, is a radio personality, publishes a web comic, and has written other books (including a novel that will be released in July 2015.) Where are the policies for what constitutes as notable? Trevor Bolliger (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bolliger, the policy for notability for books can be found at WP:NBOOK. In a nutshell the policy boils down to whether or not the books have received coverage in independent and reliable sources. Blogs, Goodreads, and other self-published sources cannot be used for notability because they undergo little to no editorial oversight, especially sites like Goodreads. Just about every guideline on NBOOK requires some sort of coverage to back them up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. Very helpful. --Trevor Bolliger (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some sources, but they're sort of iffy. The SFF World review is a staff review, which is good, but I'm not sure about the Tafts Daily or the SO sources. If Meyer went to Tafts then it'd be a primary source at best and I'm not really certain about SO's editorial oversight. They do have an editorial staff but the page about their submissions sort of has a "we take everything" sort of vibe to it, which works against the page. Basically what concerns me is that this is an article on the website as opposed to something that was more official, like a book or something that had some sort of "official staff review" type of label attached to it. I am finding some sources for Meyer as a whole ([2], [3]) so if I can find more then I may just create a page for the author and endorse a redirect there. I'm not really finding anything for the book trilogy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also looking at Basic Instructions (comics) and that is suffering from some notability issues as well. It's borderline, so I think that if we pour both into one page then that should establish enough notability for one article for the creator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scott_Meyer_(author)#Magic_2.0. I'm still not sure that all of the sources I put on the Magic 2.0 article are really usable, but I think that the SFF review paired with the few sources from the BI page does establish notability for Meyer as an individual. I'm just not sure that there's enough notability asserted for Magic 2.0 individually. If someone could verify the Tafts and SO sources as usable then that'd help immensely but for right now this is a redirect on my end. I did include the basics from the article in a section about the trilogy, so there will still be information about this series somewhere, just not on its own page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - The above arguments by Tokyogirl79 make perfect sense. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 18:28, 14 June 2015 (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.