Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost (John Ringo 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 redirect to John Ringo#Published works. The consensus here is split between keeping and redirecting, but I note that many of the keep arguments note the need to expand the article first, so if this article can be expanded at a later date it can be unredirected. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (John Ringo novel)

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

Seems to be sourced entirely to a blog, and does not seem remotely notable The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may wish to consider adding the rest of the Paladin series to this Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have prodded the paladin article as non notable, there is not a single hit on google news for it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the book is by a notable autor and it is a contoversial book that has spawned at least one cultural meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.28.225 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Ringo#Published works. I see no coverage about this book in reliable sources that justify a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep as it is a controversial book by a bestselling author, published by an established publishing company, sold by both Barnes & Noble and Amazon. Suprisingly enough it is found in the library of congress. Thus it does meet several notability thresholds. Still for the entire series of Novels it is the worst rated because of the dark sexual situations that multiple reviewers on Amazon and B&N have stated that it has put them off reading the authors books. It is also the source of the accusations of mysonogy towards the author. Paulwharton (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If the book has caused such controversy were all the the reviews from major newspapers? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has some minor notability. It's controversial. Kirkus Reviews[1]: "Mindless, misogynistic military slaughterfest, a change of scene from the author’s usual military SF beat". Book Reporter [2] : "If you are troubled by truth, male sexual fantasies, violence, and all of the things that make adventure literature great, you may not find Ringo or his book to your liking." --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect unless appropriately expanded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page did have a multiparagraph plot summary until Killer Chihuahua reduced it to a sentance as it wasn't taken from a review but insted taken from the novel itself. Feel free to check the history and change the plot summary back if it improves the page. Paulwharton (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect This book, and those following in this series, are at a minimum controversial and are offensive to many. I suspect the latter is the reason for the lack of major reviews. "I didn't like it" is a reason (I didn't say it was a good reason) to not review a book, but not a reason for Wikipedia not to mention it. If you're offended by it, think of Wikipedia's article as being a warning to others. htom (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The assertion that the book has not received many reviews because it is offensive in some way id speculation. Perhaps its because nobody cares. Who knows? It doesn't matter. The lack of coverage means that it does not meet WP:GNG, and there's no indication that WP:NBOOK is met either. The reviews linked earlier don;t seem sufficient to me.-- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Speculation? Ah, at a guess, you have not actually read any of the books in the series. I've seen reviews in which it was claimed that every group was offended, but rarely have I seen such a wide, deep brush. Have you read the "Oh No, John Ringo, NO!" piece, or his reply? htom (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Speculation is assigning offensive content to the reason for lack of reviews. It doesn't matter what the content is. That's irrelevant to the AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - reply Rape fantasy. Kidnapping. Rape. Anal rape. Gang rape. Bondage. Threats of torture. Actual torture. Child rape. Child prostitution. Adult prostitution. Murder. Violent death. Poisoning? Beheading of a human, with the head placed in a bucket to be kept as a souvenir. That's some of the first section of the first book IIRC. It gets more objectionable after that. There -are- redeeming social values in some of the characters ... but almost everyone is deeply flawed. htom (talk) 01:27, 26 October 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.