Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarc (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 9 September 2015 (→Secrets of the Last Nazi: - few edits, likely recruited offsite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Secrets of the Last Nazi

Secrets of the Last Nazi (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)

I came across this by random as a recently accepted AfC candidate. While the initial state of the article gave off the impression that this is a notable book (you can see the original state here), a quick look at the sources shows that they were almost entirely unusable.

The majority of the sources were self-published and primary sources, as it linked to blogs, Goodreads, Amazon, the publisher website, the author's website, and his agent's website. With the exception of the Sun review, I don't think that this book has received any reviews that weren't from blogs. Some larger names are mentioned, but they're only sourced to Netgalley and the author's website, and give off the impression that they are your standard run of the mill book blurbs that authors receive for their book jackets. Book blurbs are 1-2 sentences that are usually written with the intention to get their name on a jacket (raise visibility) and to get the same treatment in return for their books/websites/etc.

A search did not bring up anything that was usable. Other than the article's claim that there was a review in the Sun and the Bookseller announcement that the book rights were purchased, there's really nothing out there. The Pembrokian is not usable as a notability giving RS (although I did leave it since it could back up minor details) since it's an alumni magazine that covers things that alumni does, so it's a primary source. Also given the usage of blogs, Twitter, Amazon sales and reviews, and other unusable sources, I'd like to be able to verify that the Sun review was actually a review before really counting it as a RS.

I'd originally thought that this would just be a quick clean for an article about a topic that was notable, but after cleaning and looking for sources I can't see where this is notable in the slightest. This should not have been accepted through AfC, given that the sources were so incredibly bad. There were a lot of sources, but very few that were usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• You can see more of a rundown of the sources here. Normally I give a blow-by-blow account of each source, but the issue here is that a lot of the unusable sources were cited multiple times and the cite count was over 100, so this would have been far too excessive. Instead I lumped them by type, although the links are probably about half of that. Some of the cites were from the book itself, but I removed them because they were either being used to back up original research or they were used to back up quotes that I ended up removing. I need to stress that there was a lot of original research in the article since there were a lot of instances where they'd take a quote or material from sources that weren't really about the book to back up their claims. (In one instance they used a Lulu published book!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Here is my version of the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've reverted I think all your deletions. You have deleted references to a book with an ISBN number which quotes this one; a talk show interview; evidence that the book was a best-seller; references to a review in the UK's biggest selling newspaper (which are verifiable); references from the Guardian and Sky News; from award winning blogs; etc etc. WP notability for a book requires only that there are two external references, and that is more than easily met in this case. The other references are not there to provide evidence of notability, but to provide information that improves the article - your deletion of them amounts to good-faith vandalism.Cantelo (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep According to Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability for a page on a book (which are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)), a book qualifies if "it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." The more-than-one-hundred references for this entry clearly show:

  It was reviewed in the UK's biggest selling newspaper (verifiable here and if you look at the newspaper in a library, which is what I did;

  It was the subject of a protracted radio show programme (verifiable here and if you downloaded the programme on the listen again service, which I did.

  It features in another book - by Hans Tridle, on page 7, and verifiable on Google books.

  It was features in bookseller magazine (verifiable through a link in the page itself);

  It was the subject of many, many very substantial literary reviews by established critics, some of which have won awards and cannot be considered trivial (again, see references on the page itself);

  And it has features in Amazon's best seller lists (again, evidenced in references in the piece).

  It more-than-easily meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia.Cantelo (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've replied on the talk page, but here's the thing: you NEED to be able to provide sources that give notability. You also need to have sources that can be verifiable per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You use a LOT of self-published sources in this case - a lot of blogs, Twitter reviews, and the like. Self-published sources are almost never considered to be reliable in any way (notability or otherwise) because they undergo little to no editorial oversight. This means that anyone can publish anything on a blog and make a claim. The claims that one of the blogs was award winning does not hold any water on here because the blog's award was an award from another blog - meaning a SPS got an award from another SPS. Very, very few awards are the type that would give notability per Misplaced Pages's guidelines or make something a reliable source. This award is not one of the awards that would be an exception to this. As far as the ISBN goes, the book was published through Lulu, a self-publishing website that is notorious for publishing everything "as is". There is zero editorial oversight and they have published a lot of things that would not even begin to be seen as a reliable source. The reason I removed the talk show interview is because there is nothing on the site to verify that this interview was ever held and I also don't see a lot on the website about the show's editorial process or the process for the company as a whole. Not every talk show is one that would give notability. I also have to note that several of the sources you added were things like Twitter reviews from random people, Amazon reviews, Goodreads reviews, blog reviews... none of which are in places that Misplaced Pages particularly cares about. Anyone can write a blog review and those are almost never used in an article because anyone can write a blog. To put it bluntly, Misplaced Pages does not care about self-published reviews. Amazon rankings also do not matter, as it's a merchant site and those are almost never acceptable as a source in any context. Plus Amazon rankings do not count towards notability per the rules at NBOOK. Now the thing about external sources is that it ultimately depends on the strength of the sources. The only two usable sources were from the Sun (which we cannot verify since it appears to not be online) and a brief article from the Bookseller. These are not the strongest sources and given how unreliable the other sources are, I have to question the strength of the source we cannot verify. I also have to ask: what is your relation to the book/article? I have a strong suspicion that you are a paid editor or someone with an otherwise strong conflict of interest. You can still edit with one, but you do need to disclose this on your userpage. This article is just too full of original research and some of the content is fairly promotional - too much for it to be done by someone who does not have a conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here's the rundown of the sources mentioned at this AfD specifically: (several of these are listed several times over in the article in various formats, link to the website, link to the Twitter feed, etc)
  1. Twitter. This is a Twitter post. It does not show how indepth the review was. Given the weakness of the overall sourcing, I think that verifying this in some form or fashion is important.
  2. Twitter. Another post, but this doesn't really go into how indepth the interview is. I also have to question whether or not it is really usable, given the lack of editorial oversight visible on the page for the show. The episode itself is not on the website that's listed on the page.
  3. Hans Tridle book. This is the one that is published via Lulu. It doesn't cover the book, but I need to note that since it is a SPS, this cannot be used to back up even basic data since Lulu is notorious for releasing anything, including books that have contained incorrect data. Heck, Lulu is actually on Misplaced Pages's blacklist, if that gives any indication of how disreputable of a source Lulu can be.
  4. Bookseller. This is usable, although I will note that it is brief and to be honest, is the type of article that looks to have been heavily taken from a press release - something that many companies, Bookseller included, will do with press releases. However this is one of the articles I left on the page in this version of the page.
  5. The critics: These are almost solely book blogs and Twitter posts. Some of them are cited multiple times to the same review, but through different media, which gives off the impression that there were more people covering the book than there actually were. Some of the reviews are actually book blurbs, which I've defined above.
  6. Amazon rankings. Amazon rankings, to put it bluntly, mean nothing on Misplaced Pages, mostly because these can be very easily altered and because they have so many categories. This also doesn't include the times that books get higher ranked because there's an organized attempt to buy its way up the ranks and when the book was released for free. I'm not saying that King did anything like this, but the fact is that this has happened in the past and this, along with the fact that Amazon does not keep track of its rankings in a way that the NYT does with their book lists, is a reason why this was unanimously considered to be a reason why merchant rankings are not considered to be of any note for Misplaced Pages. It's actually specifically cited as an exclusion on WP:NBOOK with the bestseller lists.

  This book just isn't notable enough. All we really have is one brief article that was likely based on a press release and one review that cannot be verified at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to be accepting only online sources (not The Sun, for example, back copies of which are available in UK public libraries), and you don't accept verifiable references to those sources (such as the Sun's own twitter feed, or the twitter feed of The Book Show); and you don't accept verifiable references to the Sun in multiple places. Is this correct, and can you justify this with wiki policy? Re the bookshow, the interview was on the website, but was deleted after seven days, as per their policy. I listened to it, and heard the interview, which lasted about fifteen minutes (they interviewed four authors in the one hour programme) Cantelo (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with your sources is that you use some of them in a very deceptive fashion - something that you're getting called out for at RS/N. Because some of the claims you make are so outlandish, I want to be able to verify every source used in the article, including the ones that are not online. I also need to know your conflict of interest here because I doubt that you are someone who randomly discovered the book. All COI must be disclosed in your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I repeat again, I just read the book. I did randomly discover it, because I was browsing Amazon and it was recommended to me by the Amazon algorythm. Please assume good faith. I have not used sources deceptively; I have tried to use as wide a range of sources as possible to inform the page, which is the point of Misplaced Pages. You seem to have misrepresented what I wrote and the way I have used sources, but I will assume good faith on your part. What is RS/N? And can you please answer this: You seem to be accepting only online sources (not The Sun, for example, back copies of which are available in UK public libraries), and you don't accept verifiable references to those sources (such as the Sun's own twitter feed, or the twitter feed of The Book Show); and you don't accept verifiable references to the Sun in multiple places. Is this correct, and can you justify this with wiki policy? Re the bookshow, the interview was on the website, but was deleted after seven days, as per their policy. I listened to it, and heard the interview, which lasted about fifteen minutes (they interviewed four authors in the one hour programme)Cantelo (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or WP:TNT at best This article is is so filled with bad and/or questionable sources that it is best to nuke it and if a couple of good sources can be found in the dross create a new neutral article without all of the puffery. A quick look through the sources show a massive overuse of non-RS material to try to show notability and puff up the significance of the book. The best I can find searching for reviews is a press release. Fsils WP:GNG and I see no evidence it passes WP:NBOOK. I also fear, based on the citation overload, that there may be a conflict of interest issue to deal with as well. Jbh 11:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looking through the history Tokyogirl79 did a good job of cleaning up the article but then was wholely reverted by Cantelo bringing the article back to the atrocious state we see it in now. Even with all her work there is not enough for the subject to pass GNG or NBOOK. The sources that remain are poor, I can not read the Sun review but, at best that is only one 'significant' "reliably" published review. Jbh 11:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a blatant attempt to generate buzz for a book published by "a fast growing UK based digital publishing imprint open for unsolicited submissions of all fiction genres" - i.e. possibly a vanity press. This article needs nuking as blatant promotion. The conduct of its creator also needs investigating because this looks very Orangemoody. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a book review club or a book seller. Poor RS sources and clearly a promotion work. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as a rather desperate attempt to smash as many tweets and blogs and the like into one article as possible, to pretend there's notability for a non-notable eBook. Cannot even verify that a "Tom Wright" writes for The Sun, but even if he did it'd be hard to take a book review seriously from a source that advertises "‘Alien corpse’ found at site of the meteor blast that wiped out dinosaurs", among other gems. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I was once libelled by Dominc Mohan. Just sayin'. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This has at least three strong sources: the Sun, the radio interview and the Bookseller magazine article. It clearly meets notability rules. It also looks like the author has tried to be neutral, giving equal space to negative reviews as well as positive ones. If you don't like the tone, or think the article is promotional, then change it. But it should be kept because it more than easily qualifies by the criteria. Tippex for the soul (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Cramming it full of tweets and promotional language and reverting anyone who tries to tone it down is not trying to be neutral. If the book does deserve an article (and since it's published only as an ebook by an unknown publisher, that seems pretty unlikely), this would not be the article. On a number of grounds. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Whether the book is notable or not, this article is obvious promofluff, and should just be nuked. Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates