Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Summer Flame

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. two days isn't going to make much of a difference here. I understand that this was a test case, about "important" versus "notable". The lesson here isn't that important things are automatically notable, but when something is part of a class that largely notable (NYT bestsellers, in this case) then you'll need a stronger case to argue that it wasn't the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Summer Flame

[edit]
Dragons of Summer Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Being a "best seller" is not a criteria of notability (as upheld by very recent consensus). nothing to even say about the book but, it was published, made the NY times list, and here is the plot. Not a single reliable review found, nor articles about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
  • Keep The guideline is a suggestion, not policy. You use wp:common sense. Its a bestselling novel, in a series of bestselling novels, bring about the end of a long running series, killing off a few more main characters, and destroying much of the world. Dream Focus 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify...are you saying keep or saying merge (not considered the same thing by some people). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Merge then. That is, I feel the information is worth keeping for all the Dragonlance books but that most of them do not require discrete articles. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify...are you saying keep or saying merge (not considered the same thing by some people). Thanks for finding that list, as it was not linked to from the novel article at all (nor was Dragonlance itself). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That list only list bare information which is already there. So there is nothing to merge, it'd just be a delete. This article is a stub. Someone might get around to writing a proper article for it one day, as they have for many of the previous books. Dream Focus 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your basis for that claim is? There is actually plenty to merge. That list does suck, and needs to properly formatted into a real novel list, but that is not a valid reason to oppose a merge or claim that it would be a delete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking of how when consensus was to merge something in the past, [1] you refused to allow any information over, doing an edit and revert war, and finally just accepting a paragraph, and then after a month erasing even that. Would there be more than one line of information resulting from this merge? Dream Focus 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to Collectonian's original comment here): I personally feel that the article should be kept, but I see that that is unlikely because of the article's state so if it isn't kept as its own article, a merge of content is by far the best way of handling it. We already have a page which this information would fit just perfectly into, preserving information without the need for an additional, low-quality article. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is, of course, a major difference between merging to an author's biographical article (which would just be a redirect) and merging to a series/novel list (and, of course, I was NOT the only one who said no to putting a plot summary in a bio). Pretty much everything would be merged except the infobox with some wording fixes. Indeed, I'm about to start a discussion at that list about fixing its format. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this book worthy of its own article? Is it less important than others in the series that came before it, simply because there are so many DragonLance novels, they don't bother to review them anymore? It was a bestseller, many fans buying it. Dream Focus 19:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suspect almost all of the novels are in the same boat: unnotable and not reviewed. And you are making a large presumption to presume "fans" bought them. Its been well established that published, authors, etc can and will "buy" their own books to boost sales, hence sales figures not being a criteria of notability.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else actually believe that this book got to the bestsellers list not because of customers buying it, but by trickery from the publishing company? Dream Focus 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree with Collectonian in that most of the Dragonlance novels with short, stubby articles are probably non-notable (although not about the reason for that non-notability). However, I see no reason why content should not be merged into a list designed almost perfectly for that very purpose. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. Consensus confirmed this very recently. It is not a sign of notability, and when that is all there is, it is not enough to say "its still notable" when it obviously fails all points of the guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Sales figures are not listed as a case for notability is the latest. There are also many other discussions with the same conclusion in the archives. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion doesn't look to me like it has reached any consensus one way or the other. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I didn't count, but I think there were more people suggesting best-seller lists should confer notability than people who weren't. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I read it as leaning towards accepting best seller lists as prima facie evidence of notability. The precedent set by WP:MUSIC is noted by several contributors. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was, however, no consensus to add it to the guideline. Also "evidence of notability" does not mean "is notable". Being a best seller might be "evidence" but obviously in this case it can not be backed up by anything else: no other reliable sources discussing this book, no reviews, nothing. For all the "sales" no one of significance apparently cared enough to review it or talk about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did count. ;) I see two people saying no they don't count, and four people saying yes they should, and everyone else not really going one way or the other. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian, you have a very bizarre idea of "consensus" if it means to you "one other person agreed with me." DHowell (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether or not best-sellers are notable, there's sufficient coverage of this book in Google news and Google books that a decent article can be made for this book. It was recommended by the 2002 Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory: The Librarian's Guide to Cyborgs, Aliens, and Sorcerers[2], referenced in the 2003 book The 1990s[3] and the author was profiled in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel[4]. Plus it's been translated several times. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below in BK - translations are also not a criteria or sign of notability. Author profile doesn't really matter either (that's author notability). The others are not significant coverage and can easily be included in a list format. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds; I've added the one ref. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Personally, I like this book, and the whole series for that matter, but based on the content of the article, I would suggest merging it to the list. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless better sources can be found (right now all that's sourced is publication history, for a standalone article I'd like to see some sources on how the book was received other than raw sales totals). Being a bestseller is a sign of notability, but if there's not enough verifiable content to support an article longer than a stub, merger is called for even if the topic is notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All content is verifiable in the book itself, that how plot summaries work. And many articles start off as a stub and grow over time. Dream Focus 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The plot of the book is verified by the book... but reactions to it aren't. Articles can be expanded if sources exist... but I've done a few searches and don't really see where the sources are. All that could be added to this article without better sources is an overlong plot summary or original research. So I don't see any harm in merging... if it ever does get to have a decent amount of sourced info, it can always be split off. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one magazine review of it, and added that, with a bit more of the plot. I'm glad most people have already decided it was deemed notable from its high sales figures, since more than 200,000 people buying it, is far more important than a single person's opinion who just happens to be a reviewer in a magazine, that probably doesn't sell as many copies as the book being reviewed does. They wouldn't have a second printing, if they hadn't sold out the first. Dream Focus 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that Dragon was the official D&D magazine - i.e. same publishers as the books and therefore not a third-party...right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to post this, when you posted ahead of me.
Whoops! My mistake. That magazine is owned by the same company, and of course would give good reviews to all of their products, that the very reason it was created. So it has no independent third party media coverage, but as I have said, it is a bestseller, and that is all that matters. I tagged it with the Rescue squadron thing, hoping someone can help add to the plot summary. Dream Focus 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even now acknowledging it has no third-party coverage, do you still completely reject having it merge to the list, even after it was noted that the plot would also be merged? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need it. As those above have stated, it is notable for being a bestseller, the opinions of reviewers not required for that. Also, the notability guidelines can be ignored, they not policy, only guidelines. Dream Focus 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of being bold and have integrated everything from the book article into the list article, except the plot (there really is no place in the list for plot summaries of all the many novels.) The book article may now be safely deleted. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except others may come and add to it in time, so no reason to erase an article, just because it isn't fully developed yet. If it meets the requirements to have an article, then it should be done, regardless of the current content or lack their of. People will add to it over time, if they so desire, and anything is better than nothing at all. Dream Focus 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Um, things don't work like that. If its going to be deleted, it will be deleted. If its merged, then that's a separate thing. But you can't merge and say delete per GFDL. Also, as it is a list of novels, plot summaries should be included even if the current list is badly formatted.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nothing nonsensical about it. It was a best seller for one week yet no one has actually said anything about it? No reviews, no coverage, hell not even press releases saying "we released it!". Being a "best seller" is NOT a notability requirement per WP:BK and the article does not meet any of the real criteria given there, nor does it meet WP:N. It has no coverage anywhere beyond being on the list (which wasn't "reported" it was simply printed.)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the bestsellers list at any time. There are always books listed that get no reviews, no matter how weeks on the list they are on it. Lack of reviews means nothing. Some types get reviewed far more than others. Most of us here don't care what a small number of people decided when editing the guidelines. Common sense indicates the book sold quite well, has a lot of fans, and that makes it notable. I have a copy of it myself. Dream Focus 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than nonsense - it seems to be yet another attempt to abuse AFD. I had no difficulty finding a couple of reviews for this book in just a minute and this is no surprise for a book which had an advance printing of 200,000 copies. In any case, reviews are not needed to demonstrate notability. Appearance in the NYT best-seller list is prima facie evidence of notability and bringing such a book to AFD clearly fails WP:BEFORE in that there will be obvious alternatives to deletion in such a case. Simply working upon the article is the best alternative per the policy, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. AFD is only for hopeless cases, not best-sellers. Not a single editor has suggested that this article should be deleted and so this matter does not belong here. I am amending my summary accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone who's been finding reviews please link them into the article? It's a whole lot harder to delete (or even merge) an article that has honest-to-god reviews on it. :) (That's one thing I learned from GA school!) ;) BOZ (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appearing on the NYT best-seller list is "significant coverage in a reliable source". Reviews in other reliable sources only add to the evidence of notability. DHowell (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The list gives title, author, year, place. That isn't significant coverage. That's like saying being in IMDB is significant coverage.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB's goal is to list every film ever made. The NYT lists only those books that have achieved a certain level of notability, as evidenced by sales. A single-sentence claim of notability in a source as reliable as the The New York Times is worth pages of coverage in less notable sources. DHowell (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT lists every book that has reached a certain number of sales. It has nothing to do with "level of notability" but sales, period. They don't vest the sales to make sure they are legit, clear, etc. It is purely sales numbers. There are contests and prices that literally "make" someone a best seller by buying enough copies of the book to get on the lists. "Bestseller" is totally meaningless if no one else even talks about the book. It is very well documented how easily it is to "tip" that list.[6] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, 18 years ago, someone published a book on how they had a problem with how the list was calculated, and how to cheat it. And since then, you don't think they've managed to change it? The internet is more developed now, so they can have far more than just a small sample of stores feeding them information. So your link and constant dismissal of the bestsellers list, is pointless. Find something recent and accurate to back up your claim, if you want anyone to take it seriously. Dream Focus 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but I bet you'd use the same source to claim notability to call keep in AfD, but whatever. From the Trackle.com CEO Pavan Nigam; "The Best-Seller List as Marketing Tool and Historical Fiction" Book History, Volume 3, 2000, pp. 286-304, from Laura Miller; news report on the Times revamping in 2007 to get more ad revenue; another 07 report noting that the list is flawed because Harry Potter - obviously a best seller - was removed because of the way the list is formed; there are plenty of sources discussing it out there. As you love to tell people in AfDs - go find sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence makes no sense at all. Being a bestseller on the children's list, would still prove it was notable anyway. And I don't recall ever telling people to go find sources. You are thinking of some deletionist perhaps. Anyway, one link says: The newspaper created the children's list in a response to complaints from publishers other than Scholastic -- Rowling's publishers -- that Harry Potter was monopolising the top of the bestseller list, depriving people access to other popular fiction. That doesn't have anything to do with them not getting accurate readings for the books that are listed though. The books that are listed still sell quite well. Dream Focus 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument only proves my point. The fact that someone was gaming the system to get on the NYT best-seller list was documented in reliable sources, showing that appearing on the NYT best-seller list is a notable accomplishment. If appearing on the NYT best-seller list wasn't an indicator of notability, no one would bother to write about it being gamed. DHowell (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first link says the "list compiles information from over 3,000 bookstores and more than 28,000 other retail outlets and wholesalers." So I don't think its possible for a publisher to fake results anymore. THe older article listed a far smaller group they had back when they had problems. To go to 31,000 and buy a reasonable number of copies of a book to make it noticed on the list, would cost a fortune. So this tactic is not used anymore, and thus you have no logical reason to be against the Bestseller's list being used to prove notability. Dream Focus 20:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really want to say Keep, but unless someone can establish something more than being a New York Times bestseller (I'm looking at Dragons of Autumn Twilight and doing a google news, book, and scholar search, but can find nothing to justify anything close to that), I'm afraid a Merge may be better - unfortunately I can't tell where - the List of Dragonlance books is too long or inappropriate for it. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to note: the Dragon review is iffy as it's not truly independent. However, if there was another good 3rd party review, that would at least be a start. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dragon review is a good add for the reception section (it's still a review), but I agree it doesn't help for notability. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The few additional sources that have been found, plus at least this [7] push this far enough to Keep for me, though I encourage editor to turn and work from print sources to expand more. And just to comment - just because the authors are notable, and the book made the NYTimes list does not infer notability (Notability is not inherited). Not every song by a notable artist is notable, nor is every painting by a notable painter, etc. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NYT Bestseller list meets notability. If you say "consensus says otherwise" ... well, look at all the people saying it does, right here. Consensus is like that. :-). Also, it's an important book in the series, as it kills off many important characters. Here is the author, Weis, saying as much in a SciFi.com interview. [8] It got turned into an audiobook, that's something to add to the article.[9] --GRuban (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The series that this is a major development in is notable. The authors are notable. The book itself was a NYTimes best seller. The combination of those factors to me mitigates the somewhat spartan coverage of the book. The internet might be short of coverage for the book for the simple reason that it would primarily have been reviewed in SF and fantasy publications that were not yet moving much content online as of 1995. The 'publication history' section of the Dragonlance article might contain sources that could expand on the novels particular place in the history of TSR and the authors. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How does anyone decide a NYT bestseller is not notable? What a waste of time. --KP Botany (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per almost everyone, it is clear that we should have an article on this book. Notability is a rule, a tool, instead of a goal in itself like the core principles are. We all know that we're a lot better at making articles than rules, and since the encyclopedia covers most fields in existence, there will be eventualities where they won't fit. If the rules are against retaining this article, then the rules are in the wrong. --Kizor 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can this be closed as WP:SNOW at this point? From the looks of it, it's not going to get deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:09, 12 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragons_of_Summer_Flame&oldid=1088728532"