Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitechapel Gods (2nd nomination)

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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechapel Gods[edit]

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

Last AfD three years ago ended in no consensus. Appears to fail all aspects of WP:NBOOKS. Author is non notable and does not have an article on Wikipedia. I can find reviews from a few minor online reviewers, but no major reviews. Book was not a significant seller. Article tagged for notability since 2009. Safiel (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a throwaway putdown in AV Club[1]. Not notable, even by the standards of science fiction which gets less mainstream coverage than many genres. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found some sources, but they're not the strongest. I think that the author would pass notability guidelines so I'll start on an article for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found just enough to where the author could scrape by notability guidelines, but there's not an awful lot. It looks like this author put out two books and then effectively disappeared from the scene in 2009. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Safiel, Colapeninsula, what do you think about the author's page? I'm kind of a little undecided on him - there's enough to where I could probably justify a mainspace article for him, but at the same time this isn't all that heavy and that's pretty much the extent of his coverage. If this is all that he's ever going to get (ie, if he never releases anything again and never gets covered further) then this really isn't an exceedingly strong article. I could maybe flesh it out with a little synopsis of his work, but that's about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: Comment Given that WP:NAUTHOR reads:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Clearly this author fails all aspects of WP:NAUTHOR so I would recommend against a move to article space. Safiel (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the thing about authors is that they can pass notability guidelines if they're received reviews on their work in reliable sources - which he has (five of them). Reviews can count towards author notability depending on where they're posted. What I'm basically concerned with is that although he's received coverage in RS to where he could probably squeak by notability guidelines there really isn't a whole lot out there as a whole. I do for the most part agree that this probably shouldn't be moved to the mainspace but I do want to be on record as saying that reviews would count towards author notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a Background section based on a newspaper article. The Library Journal and Steampunk Magazine articles seem non-trivial, too. So I lean towards keep, but I can see how it is a borderline case. maclean (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets WP:NBOOK with the 3 reviews in the article ie. "1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have also found this which may contribute to its notability [2] - Determining the Roots of Steampunk: A Comparison of Contemporary Works with Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Forerunners of Speculative fiction by Matthew Delman appearing in Presentations of the 2010 Upstate Steampunk Extravaganza and Meetup pages 83 to 110, which is unfortunately incomplete (damn you google books!:)) but in his conclusion states "The high-level mechanical and steam-powered technology the likes of which Verne and Wells composed in their seminal novels make an appearance throughout the entirety of Steampunk literature. The steam-powered Boiler Men of Whitechapel Gods, ... all of these fictional innovations exist because of the technology of the Nineteenth Century," Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more believing that further discussion can get us to somewhere.. JAaron95 ^Talk 15:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed my vote with the new sources. It's very marginal, but just scrapes notability. Steampunk Magazine is an actual print publication. Plus a couple of other reviews (RT is also a reliable source), local press, and other throwaway references. Wouldn't be averse to turning it into an article on the author but I don't think it's necessary. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to satisfying WP:NBOOK as the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works (reviews) independent of the book itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 22 July 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.