Talk:The Editors (novel)

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete.

AFD discussion

Apologies for just having found my way to the deletion discussion, after having promoted my version back into mainspace after assuming it was just a quality issue. I think that the novel at this point passes basic criteria though, and it does have special relevance to Wikipedia, which adds to its notability. See also Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison. It's still very new and hopefully we'll see more reviews if/when it finds its way around the world. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer and deleting admin are competent, an article will not be deleted for quality issues. Either the subject is notable, or it is not. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it had been draftified, not outright deleted, and I didn't realise that it had gone through the AFD process at all. I have come across editors who draftify because of quality issues. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: It had been outright deleted (log) but I restored it and then subsequently draftified it as I believed that it had potential and I had plans to work on it before it G13'd (and wanted to preserve work attributions) but just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I believe the move to mainspace was premature but disagree with the G4. I echo @Sdkb:'s sentiment in terms of the quote "it does have special relevance to Wikipedia, which adds to its notability." This needs to meet WP:NBOOK or another notability guideline. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have G4d it because the deletion discussion was so recent, and the scramble to add sources today does not demonstrate notability as I think you tacitly admit. I would withdraw the G4 if this went back to draft space instead, but it really ought to go through AfC before going back to mainspace to prevent a return trip to AfD, which demands a lot of editor time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor ah, I see, thanks for the explanation.

I would agree that this is a borderline case, but would also just like to note, according to NBOOK,

"Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline."

And IMO this book is notable not only for its specific topic but its social relevance (and the fact that anyone reading it or wanting to read it would expect to find it in Wikipedia). I don't see the point of hiding it as a draft at this point. Anyhow, I'll bow out of the discussion and let others decide. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of hiding it as a draft at this point. - Then it is back to AfD, I suppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink, the reception section gives the impression that these are quotes from published reviews of the book, but they are sourced to publicity blurbs in an event announcement. The article would have a better chance at AfD if actual published reviews were cited. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it does have special relevance to Wikipedia, which adds to its notability. No no no no no no no!!! Our goal when writing anything about ourselves, particularly in mainspace, should be to remain objective and neutral, which means treating that content exactly the same as any other content. This is the exact opposite of that. There is no exemption to the notability guideline for Wikipedia-related content (nor is there an exemption to sourcing/see also standards that justifies giving precedence to the Signpost review when it is not considered reliable; it should be treated the same as if it were an external link). Sdkb ^talk 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about Signpost - being the first time I'd even seen it - so will move it to ELs. IMO a fictional work does not breach objectivity and neutrality, and it is something that anyone reading the novel or reading about it would want to look up on Wikipedia. It's not important only because it is about WP, but also because it is a published work by what seems to be a reputable publisher, with an entry on the LC catalogue - a basic notability test for books - and available via major retailers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]