Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holder's Dominion
- 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 Genese Davis. Redirecting as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Holder's Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This novel does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for book notability. Specifically, the guidelines say a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself," and while there was some fleeting coverage in RSes of the author (Genese Davis) around the time of publication- mainly interviews by video gaming outlets focusing on the gaming angle of her writing- I cannot find any non-self-published reviews of the novel itself, suggesting the book's notability, apart from its author, is quite limited at best.
The article was created by an editor, Ericd83, with a probable COI- their talk page shows they tried multiple times over the course of about five years to create or have created an article about the author (and the article mentions a trailer directed by an "Eric Davis")- and was originally inappropriately promotional in tone, with too much detail on the plot, and inappropriate sourcing. These issues have been mostly fixed, but the article still doesn't really make a case for why the book is notable.
I would have merged this article into its author's article, but it doesn't really have any useful content that isn't already there (eg links to interviews), as it's mostly a plot summary. My understanding is that the article needs to go through the AfD process as it was PRODed and then de-PRODed before- though the de-PRODing was potentially inappropriate, having been done by the article's creator, who argued that it shouldn't be deleted because it's a "big deal in the gaming community" that has had an "incredible reception." Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Video games. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete the article, while merging the small reliable reception information and interesting interviews (about the author) with the author's page. I'm coming at this from a video game background for context-- I find the Wired mention to be a significant passing mention (more than what you might see normally, but not enough to establish notability), and the Engadget interview comes form a reliable source. But the problem is.... it's a lot of interviews (primary sources), passing mentions, and just very sketchy sites that wouldn't pass WP:RS standards. I think the brief snippets from Wired and some of the interview material could be useful information for the author's page, but this book isn't notable enough on its own.
- One other note though -- on WP:DEPROD-ing, there's no real inappropriate way to de-PROD an article. They aren't required to give any rationale -- but it means it gets to come to us for larger discussion. Nomader (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Because of the work by the nom here on Davis's page, I would also be fine with a redirect as well. Nomader (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the two reviews for WP:NBOOK. The testimonials page for a book will essentially always include independent reviews when those exist, but this just cites praise by private individuals. A "keep" decision would have to rest on WP:GNG based on the video game angle, but I don't see much support for that. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Did you also check this source from Bleeding Cool? It's considered a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, and while it does revolve around an interview with the author, the article seems to also contain analysis of the book as well. Specifically, the article contextualizes the book in terms of gender and feminism in the entertainment industry along with the author's struggles in publishing the book, and even aspects of the plot as well. It would be a useful source to discuss the development and themes of the book, but on its own I can see how editors may still not consider the book notable. Admittedly, I was also unable to find an actual review of the book itself, which is why I couldn't bring myself to vote Keep. However, I think this source could at the very least prove that a Merge to Genese Davis would be a suitable alternative to deletion, as editors may add info about the book to her article and expand it. It doesn't look like info on the book's development is on her page, so I think it's an appropriate course of action. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that any good, reliably-sourced info relevant to the book should be incorporated into Davis's article, and I also agree that there are useful/notable things that might be written about her writing and publication of the book. The trick is that none or almost none of the novel's article's text, as it stands, falls into that category (it's almost entirely plot, characters, trailer), such that, AFAICT, there's not much meaningful distinction between merging the article-as-it-exists into the author's article, and simply deleting it. I guess probably the novel title oughta redirect to Davis. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- (Now, a couple hours later) I've gone over Davis's article and worked in the Bleeding Cool source, so it now covers the novel and its publication in brief. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that any good, reliably-sourced info relevant to the book should be incorporated into Davis's article, and I also agree that there are useful/notable things that might be written about her writing and publication of the book. The trick is that none or almost none of the novel's article's text, as it stands, falls into that category (it's almost entirely plot, characters, trailer), such that, AFAICT, there's not much meaningful distinction between merging the article-as-it-exists into the author's article, and simply deleting it. I guess probably the novel title oughta redirect to Davis. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Genese Davis instead of a merge per WP:ATD, since Yspaddadenpenkawr merged information about the book to her article. If more reviews come in the future, the book may justify its own page. For now, having the book redirect is preferable to straight up deletion in my opinion. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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.