Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. V. Larson

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 delete. The "keep" arguments are considerably weaker in terms of policy and guidelines, and often add up to "but he's very commercially successful, so he must be notable". Well, not according to our inclusion guidelines, as Tokyogirl79 points out. Her thorough analysis of the available sources hasn't been seriously addressed by those wanting to keep the article, which also weakens their side of the argument.  Sandstein  17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. V. Larson[edit]

B. V. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author with no adequate references for notability. none of his books are held in more than 80 libraries a/c Worldcat; Technomancer has 79, and the others are fewer than 20. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References now on page (Amazon.com, Audible.com) cannot support ntability. He gets a few press mentions, Here: [1],and here: [2], news google search on his name [3], but not enough to source a page or support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found the same results: he's brought up occasionally as a WP:TRIVIAL mention, but sadly he has never received the type of coverage that Wikipedia would require to satisfy notability guidelines for authors. He's pretty much one of many authors whose works are self-published (either partially or entirely) or indie that has a fan following, but not one large enough to attract attention from places Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the sources I found were either WP:SPS or in places like SFFAudio, which are kind of squiffy as far as whether or not they'd pass Wikipedia's fairly strict verification guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough to meet notability here and do an interesting article. The article needs work, but there appears to be an interested editor in the commenting in the Book AfD; therefore, a better candidate for WP:ATD.
There is nothing in the policies or guidelines that I've read where WorldCat has any bearing on notability. 009o9 (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I triggered consideration to delete this author's entry when I started to expand on one of his series. Perhaps each of his books or series don't warrant an entry, but at least a short entry on the author should be retained due to the number of books (70+ according to the entry under consideration). The author is still active so this number will grow.Thomasjones44 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately none of the sources above are enough to warrant a keep. Here's my rundown on them, since they were the same sources I found earlier for the most part:
  1. io9 This was an insanely brief mention that says that he was successful. Selling well can help an author gain coverage in reliable sources, but an author is not notable because they are popular or because they sell well. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Sometimes someone can be popular but still fail notability guidelines, as coverage is never a guarantee. At best this is a WP:TRIVIAL mention and not one that would give notability.
  2. College. Being a professor is not something that would automatically give notability either and I don't see where he'd pass WP:PROF. There are a lot of associate professors out there and what he'd need is to show that he's held a prestigious position or is extremely notable in his teaching career - which he is not. This doesn't mean that he isn't a good teacher, I'm sure that he is, but being a professor does not give any sort of notability on Wikipedia unless he falls within PROF, which he does not.
  3. DM, NYT. These are the same thing, which is a repost of an Audible bestseller/download listing. While bestseller lists are considered to be usable, the listing has to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and this was not one of the types of bestseller lists that would be considered notable. I should know - I was the one who pushed for this to be included in WP:NBOOK.
  4. Guardian. This is another very, very brief mention. The thing about trivial mentions is that being mentioned isn't enough. The person in question has to be the focus of the article or at least be mentioned enough in the article where the journalist goes into depth. This just isn't here with this article and like the first trivial source, being popular isn't enough. It'd be nice if it was since it'd make it a lot easier for me to add various authors into Wikipedia, but it's just not. No amount of trivial sources will be equal to one reliable source.
  5. SFF Audio. Not every review site is usable as a reliable source. The site has to have some sort of editorial oversight that can be verified enough to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. It's insanely difficult for most sites to do this since many are self-published sources or they don't undergo an editorial process that would satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. Offhand I'd say that this site wouldn't be usable because there's not a whole lot on here about how they vet reviews. If it was a staff member then there would be some wiggle room, but it isn't and it looks like it was from a somewhat random Goodreads user. I'm not meaning to knock Goodreads since I also have reviewed stuff on there, but this kind of gives me the impression that they just accept reviews from anyone.
  6. Spire Press. This is a self-published source at best, assuming it's not a primary source. This is an interview that Larson gave on this person's blog. A lot of authors consider interviews to be primary sources and while I'm not one of them, this still isn't a usage source. Most blogs aren't usable as a RS because they're self-published and undergo little to no editorial oversight. While there are exceptions, they are very few and far between and this is not one of those exceptions. Even if it could be used, it's still only one source and an extremely weak one that could be very, very easily challenged by other editors.
  7. Interviewing Authors. This kind of has the same issue as above in that it's essentially a self-published source. This quote on the "about" page pretty much invalidates it as a source: "If you’re interested in a doing an interview you can use as a promotional tool or if you’re an unpublished author who would like to be interviewed please see the “Interview You” program page." Going to the specific page shows that authors can purchase publicity on the site. I hate to say it, but this was pretty easily found. Sites that pay for coverage are usually pretty blatant because they have to be transparent.
  8. Kindle. This is a WP:PRIMARY source. Larson publishes his work on Amazon, so it'd be within their best interests to publicize him. I'm not denying that he's popular, but the thing I need to stress is that selling well and being popular does not automatically mean notability on Wikipedia. It just makes it more likely that there will be sources, but this is not a guarantee. I've seen many, many authors sell extremely well via self-publishing (and heck, even mainstream publishing) yet still overall fail notability guidelines.
I'm not trying to be a hard***, but these sources are not enough to save the article. We cannot have an article without showing notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, which are insanely strict. Having an article on one of his series wouldn't be enough either, since it's usually easier to have an article on the author than it is for the books since we can collect sources for multiple books/series rather than have to prove notability for a single book/series. If the author doesn't pass notability guidelines then that almost always means that their work would fail as well. (The only exception would be in cases like Jobie Hughes, where the I Am Number Four series passes notability guidelines but he himself does not, but these exceptions are extremely rare.) If a series page was created without at least being able to establish notability for the author then it's extremely likely that all you've done is create a series page that would not pass NBOOK and would need to be deleted. There's also the fact that if you create entries too early then you run the risk of the author being remembered for having articles before it's time... which makes people more likely to see his work as non-notable, meaning that they'd become deletion targets. Right now the best thing to do would be to userfy the articles, wait, and brush up on notability standards. I know that last part sounds really, really arrogant, but it's kind of the truth: if you come forward and try to create the article with sources that are seen as weak (at best) or just outright unusable, then people will be less likely to believe you in the future if you try to say he passes notability guidelines with additional sources. This is the curse of book/author deletions: you really need to have extremely solid sourcing to overturn an AfD. Being popular is not enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed in the Top 10 sales in the New York Times. I would have though all authors listed in this list are sufficiently notable

for wikipedia, lest wikipedia forces authors to publish under the garrotte of large publishing houses? New York Times Bestsellers Adacus12 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I looked at a number of listings for his books, all of which are self-published (although his Amazon profile says that he has also published via a traditional publisher, but I didn't find evidence of that). His audible books are also self-published, and some of his books are e-book only via Amazon's own (self-)publishing platform. The problem with the Audible best seller listing is that we don't know if, for example, the book was on special that week for a very low price. I have seen Amazon and Audible rankings be manipulated (mainly by self-publishers) by providing their book for a short time for free or $.99. Since the sellers (both Amazon in this case, since it owns Audible) don't reveal that kind of information, we can't know what the presence on the list means. I did check and no BV Larson books are listed in the top 60 Audible books today. In terms of numbers of books sold, the statements that he has sold millions of books and that he is a best-selling author appear to be unverifiable. That said, there is an entire culture of self-published authors, some of which have quite a following, and there has always been a somewhat cultish underground of science fiction writers and readers that do not get the respect of traditional publishing. I don't think this person is notable, but if it continues to be easy to self-publish, I'm assuming that we'll eventually have a reliable structure of reviewing and reporting that would allow us at WP to accurately assess the impact of these authors. That's definitely not the case today. LaMona (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Full disclosure: I created this page, and I regret not putting more work into it. However, I do want to emphasize that this plays no role in my decision to keep.) I have followed B.V. Larson's career as an author since Swarm was first released on Audible. I created this page when Larson was about halfway through the Star Force series and I was impressed with how prolific he was even then. To me, Larson was - and still is - the quintessential wildly successful sci-fi/fantasy self-publisher. In 5 years he has released near 50 full length novels through Amazon, which is arguably the most popular and relevant book and audiobook distributor in the world. Every book Larson puts out hits both the Amazon and Audible bestseller lists upon release. Currently, Larson is rated #5 in the hourly-updated Top100 Science Fiction authors in Amazon (out of every author who has published under this category), actually ranking 3 places above George R R Martin and just under the late, great Michael Chrichton. Indeed, he even ranks #89 overall in the Top 100 Authors for every genre. Now, I understand what the argument is. Wikipedia has guidelines for author notability and the current sources don't address that. However, I would argue that Larson represents a new generation of self-made literary entrepreneurs. Thanks to digital media, you do not need to funnel your content through a large publisher or any publisher at all as long as you can get your work distributed by someone like Amazon. I would agree that the big problem is the disservice that Amazon does to authors by not making their ranking metrics public and available for analysis. I just find it to be absolutely absurd that in this era of digital media that success through self-publishing is considered less notable than success through traditional publishing. From another perspective, consider the Author notability guideline "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." If in this context we consider 'peer' to be authors, and importantly other self-publishing authors, B.V. Larson is consistently cited as being the best in the business. He has been interviewed by self-publishers and related ventures several times (examples: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], he has been interviewed by Kindle for his success [16], he is mentioned in at least a couple how-to books on self-publishing Let's Get Digital: How To Self-Publish, And Why You Should, The Self-Publishing Playbook , and he is regularly mentioned as the epitome of a successful self-publisher (examples: [17], The Star , Canada Newswire, PRWeb, [18]. Additionally, a direct peer, author Barry Eisler regards Larson as notable self-publisher in his blog. In summary, if he is not notable for his works alone, he is absolutely notable as one of the first and certainly most well-known authors to become successful almost entirely through self publishing (Technomancer was published through Amazon's 47North). IF the article needs to be re-worked to include this information, let me know and I will find the time. Hopefully, a Wikipedian who agrees with me who has more talent in this arena will potentially assist in this venture, as well. Thanks for reading. lethalenoki (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lethalenoki Your argument is well-reasoned, but the sources still don't add up, from what I can see. Essentially, in the reliable sources (newspapers, mainly, and the one book) Larson is merely "name-checked" -- that is he is mentioned by name in sentences like: "...self-published writers including B.V. Larson and A.G. Riddle." And that's all. What we need is for there to be an article ABOUT him, or at least that goes into some depth, in such a source. That's what WP requires for notability. Sources that aren't neutral (like Kindle, which publishes him and therefore has a vested interest in making him look good), can't be used; nor can personal web sites and blogs. One of the sources starts out "Guess what! My cousin Brian is also a science fiction and fantasy author!" That's obviously not a neutral source. I agree with you that it's unfair that self-published authors don't get more attention, but until they start getting reviews in established sources, we have no reasoned way to separate wheat from chaff -- and, quite honestly, from the few self-published books I've opened up, there's a lot of chaff. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • lethalenoki I am sympathetic to your argument, and I would WP:HEYMANN change my vote if you or someone else could show one or two major media sources that describe Larson in some degree of detail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/B._V._Larson&oldid=1069234366"