Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Mein (book)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 rough consensus here is that the book lacks reliable sources needed to show notability for an independent article. Consensus did not support the student newspaper as reliable, and there is no real consensus the Midwest Book Review is reliable either. Note that nothing in this decision prevents the mention of relevant content at the author's page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Mein (book)

edit
Lo Mein (book) (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)

Totally non notable. Worldcat [1] shows only 6 copies, and all the reviews are unreliable local sources. Unwisely accepted from AfC. Written by declared paid coi editor;a good example of why such articles need careful scrutiny--the check by AfC approval is not always sufficiently careful DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 20:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the paid editor on this one. As far as I can recall, college newspapers go through the editorial process, WP:BKCRIT, Item 1, reads: "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." Though not authoritative, WP:BKTS states that belonging to a national registry is a "nice to have." Library of Congress
If we are not going to abide by the published guidelines, and add other hurdles, I suggest that the guidelines be modified to reflect this and save everyone the trouble. Believe me, if the Wikipedia does not want these articles, I don't want to tell the client I can write them. But, I only have the policies and guidelines to go by.
I learned today that the book project(s) are not interested in review rankings, only reviews from professional critics. (So if you are not connected, your book goes nowhere on Wikipedia?) The film project seems to appreciate viewer aggregates -- go figure. Just for completeness: This deletion discussion appears to be the result of someone digging through my contributions while there is an ongoing discussion in AfC for another article earlier today.
Finally, I'm not finding where a WorldCat count has clear bearing on notability and why the nominating party is diverging from the guidelines. -- 009o9 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some proposed edits on Talk:Lo Mein (book), I was halfway through a clean up when I remembered that the Lo Mein is in Article space, so I can't add the edit within TOU. Should satisfy the Nobility guideline if I'm allowed to cite it. 009o9 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see a single usable referece.

The two additional ones are student newspapers, which are not reliable for book reviews, since they do not go through a professional editing process. The ones in the article are either from blogs, which in this context are not reliable/. The "finding aid" from the Library of Congress is simply their catalog record. A catalog record for a book does not mean its notable. it is simply outside the bounds of rationality than a popular fiction book that is in only 6 libraries can possibly be notable, and nobody but a coi editor would think so. Sunch coutnts are a shortcut, but they indicate very well why no reliable source has ever thought the book worth reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia entry for Student newspaper says that student newspapers are often integrated with the Journalism curriculum, which I would tend to agree is true in the colleges that have a journalism program. The University of Washington Journalism program is #28 in the US, Notre Dame Journalism is #927. I guess the "blog" you are referring to is curledup . com, which appears to have some editorial controls it appears some reviews are solicited, but the reviewer that panned Lo Mein is listed on the "Staff" page.
Actually, Eringer is blackisted in literary circles, "The Greatest Vendetta on Earth" (Salon) is a pretty interesting read. His great sin was becoming involved in persuading a tabloid journalist to work on other books rather than the book that his client (Feld Ringling Bros.) did not want published. From this and other escapades, there is no other author that I can think of who's life has been written about more in recent decades.
As for clarifying the Wikipedia guidelines for books, you might examine [2]. If there is a caveat that the reviews must be a paid content-experts and working with organizations with Wikipedia's "imprimatur," the "review" term in BKCRIT 1 should probably have a footnote or link. A clarification might save everyone a lot of trouble. -- 009o9 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any significant sources for this book. The publisher (if I have the right URL) seems to have gone out of business ([3]), so it isn't easy to find information about it (e.g. is this a self-published book?). The fact of a Library of Congress copy merely means that copies were sent to the copyright office, as per copyright registration. The author is not included in any Booklist reviews (and Booklist reviews most books from US publishers). Rainbo Reviews does not appear to be an RS, and in any case the review is a single sentence. It is odd that the only substantial reviews are in student papers and one "scholarly blog" (but still a blog). LaMona (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation LaMona on your vote, Publisher's Weekly, [4] has 50 references to Corinthian Books, 23 titles on Open Library ranging from 1999 to 2006 it looks like one of the recessions got them. Lo Mein is in the middle of a series of three books that has Jeff Dalkin as the lead character. The third book, Spookaroonie (2002) [5] got a little more attention. I believe that this series is the author's jump from non-fiction to fiction. Due to Dalkin's Tourette syndrome induced foul language, this is likely not a series that libraries are going to go out of their way to catalog. Lo Mein,[6] has 11 WorldCat listings, Spookaroonie[7] has 16 WorldCat listings, one of them Harvard College Library if that means anything.
I'm checking the cites to see if this might be rolled into a three book article centered around the fictional character Jeff Dalkin, who's language from Lo Mein has made it into an Urban Slang Dictionary.[8] -- Cheers --009o9 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by the "foul language" quote, but libraries 1) catalog everything they buy 2) contain lots of foul language. If libraries don't buy the book it means that they either a) don't receive requests for it from their readers, b) it isn't from a publisher in their buying profile, and/or c) it didn't appear in the review sources they rely on (like Booklist). Also, OpenLibrary has no inclusion policy -- it attempts to gather information on "every book ever written," and accepts user-provided data, so inclusion in OL for books is like inclusion in IMDB for movies. That PW includes some Corinthian books but not this one is a strike AGAINST this book in terms of notability. I do see the PW review for Spookaroonie, but a PW review alone (<300 words) does not provide notability, and definitely not inherited notability. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editor comment: The editorial structure for the Notre Dame Observer can be found on page 10 [9]. The author of the Lo Mein book-review from Notre Dame is now a PhD and an assistant professor of French. [10] The managing editor of The Leger, University of Washington, was Regina Chynoweth for 2000-01 and Mary Roeder for 2001-02 [11] (page 3). The University of Washington book-review author wrote about 15 articles and is now a homemaker. With evidence ofWP:RS verified, this AfD nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. 009o9 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
none of this shows their reliability when they were undergraduates. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the above demonstrates that there was editorial oversight in place and in effect at the time of the writing. Could it be that Journalism and editorial policy is actually taught at colleges? And the advanced journalism students mentor the junior students? Ultimately, you haven't proven your case that these newspapers are not RS. 009o9 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I find myself in complete agreement with LaMona, despite the article creator's large wall of text dumped here. Perhaps (by no means certain) the whole series of three books together would be sufficiently notable for a short article. More likely, a short paragraph in the article on the author, Robert Eringer, would suffice. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick two cents: for all of its fluffiness the article looks decent--until you check the references, which are not up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A more recent incarnation,[12] removed verbiage that points to the author's notability. 009o9 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And added the mention in the Routledge Slang Dictionary in the new draft.[13] 009o9 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make me change my mind. The book doesn't become notable because its use of "cunt face" is cited, though I do appreciate your pointing me to that word. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was amusing that it got picked up, included the quote for completeness. It is an interesting read due to clever writing and I generally don't read fiction, that entire side of the industry is fluff to me. 009o9 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus/clarification needed Another editor has voted commented on and is modifying the article that up for discussion. I've suggested improvements on the talk page and my sandbox,[14] which have not been implemented. Am I, a paid editor, allowed to edit the article under WP:EDITATAFD? 009o9 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the additional of unreliable sources is not an improvement. In terms of improvement, though, the paragraph from "Curled-Up" is not reliable either, and despite the improvements that Drmies made in it, I think it equally should be removed from the article. That leaves no quotes from a review, because there are no RS reviews to quote. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
009o0, my edits were mostly cosmetic and, I would like to say, helped the article. Statements like "The protagonist's Tourette Syndrome is purposely developed to the point of tedium" can't be simply part of a plot summary (which requires no secondary sourcing) since it's clearly a matter of literary interpretation. The background stuff on the writer's career, that really had no place here since nothing in it related to this particular book. As for EDITATAFD, there's nothing in there that would have prevented my edits or would prevent you from improving the article: go for it, I say. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author's page. Sometimes student newspapers can be usable, depending on who publishes them and how prestigious the newspaper is considered. For example, an article in The Daily Princetonian would be something that could be usable since they've won a good number of awards and are well thought of. The student newspaper from my alma mater likely would not, as the newspaper is fairly tiny and hasn't really won any awards that I can remember. Whether these two could be used are somewhat iffy since they're run independently of their schools and are entirely student-run, which puts a monkey wrench into things. The other sources aren't the type that would show notability, so all we have here are two sources that are weak at best (assuming we can use them as a RS). We'd really need to have more than this to firmly establish that this book could have an article outside of its author. (Full disclosure, I've declined an AfC submission about another book by this author.) The thing about the "two or more non-trivial published works" is that it's fairly rare that an article will be kept on two book reviews unless those reviews are from incredibly well thought of publications that put a lot of thought and depth into the work, pretty much along the lines of Michiko Kakutani reviewing something in the New York Times and even then I'm not sure that a review by her (along with a review by an equally well thought of literary critic) would be enough for an article. The type of sources that would hold that much weight are usually books published through academic/scholarly publishers and even then they'd have to make a strong assertion of notability in the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's recap Since I can't get a yes/no answer whether I (a paid writer) can edit the article in AfD while in the mainspace, I recap here. I appreciate the votes to keep the redirect and I'm planning to start a RfC concerning the NBOOK guidelines not meeting the expectations many of the editors here, so others won't run into the same problem.

Notability, here was intended to go to NBOOK (W:NBCRIT) #5 as a "discriminate collection" (WP:DISCRIMINATE) of the author's works (The author is notable for his non-fiction, but nice to have a fiction sample).

  1. . A phrase from the book has made the Routledge Slang Dictionary, 2008 and 2015[15][16]
  2. . The book was reviewed in Notre Dame Observer,[17] that author is now a PhD holding assistant French professor,[18] (editorial oversight structure is demonstrated above).
  3. . An MSM book review has turned up as the Google spiders work continue to dig back to 2000, a short review from a paper owned by, Townnews.[19]
  4. . A review in the University of Washington Ledger, the staff of that paper is currently paid, (editorial oversight structure is demonstrated above).[20]
  5. . As an NBCRIT prerequisite, the book must be listed in the country's registry, Lo Mein is listed in the Library of Congress,[21] has 11 entries in WorldCat not 6.[22]

Since I don't have consensus to edit in the articlespace and other editors have removed content, I'm keeping an updated version in my sandbox.[23] Here is what I've found on guidance for college newspapers:

WP:UNIGUIDE: Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, but these sources are not as strong a source to demonstrate notability as mainstream news organizations, and they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, both college sources have nationally ranked journalism programs(noted above), an editorial structure has been demonstrated (above) and both are WP:INDY from any bias the college itself may impose. Once again, the claim here is that the author (Robert Eringer) is notable and a discriminate collection of his work is allowable under WP:BKCRIT #5 009o9 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. the more I look at the Lo Mein topic, the more Google seems to dig up on it. 009o9 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here's the thing, and the takeaway you should learn from this experience: If significant coverage of the topic you are thinking about writing an article on occurs only in two college newspapers and a blog, it does not meet notability, so do not write an article on it. That much I think should be obvious to anyone who is not involved. Your arguments about where the book is listed are specious and have nothing to do with notability for books. Lastly, Robert Eringer is not sufficiently notable that anything he ever set his pen to might merit a Wikipedia article; the fact that you believe this to be true shows either your lack of understanding of Wikipedia, or your over-involvement with this article. While it is expected that article creators will wish to defend their creations at AfD, you are really going off on a deep end here. The only thing that has merit in your last post is the Argus Observer review. If there had been a handful of periodical reviews like that, it might have conferred notability. But two college newspapers and a blog do not, and none of those should even be entering this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Softlavender, if that is the case, then the term, "and the author's life" should be removed from WP:BKCRIT #5. Currently, the guideline does not say that the author is required to be notable for his books, which is why I wrote the article on it. Otherwise, I'm sure that there are a handful of reviews out there like the Argus Observer buried in newspaper archives. Like I said, I will read up on how to take this to RfC, the guidelines do not represent the expectations here.009o9 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please read WP:APPNOTE. WikiProject Cooperation is not directly related to Lo Mein (book), and this is an AfD, not a discussion of paid editing (which by the way WikiProject Cooperation is also not directly related to even if it were). Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much paid about editing, otherwise why would it be mentioned in the nomination? The WikiProject Cooperation article lede paragraph reads as follows: The Cooperation Wikiproject facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia. We provide education and outreach to public relations and marketing professionals, freelance editors, and employees working on assignments from their employers.
Additionally, the nominator left this on my talk page concerning this discussion: Most people here only tolerate paid editors very reluctantly, and you are not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. This has so far not come up principally with books and authors--its come up mostly with businessmen and companies, and the current trend is to find some reason to delete anything by a paid editor unless it is unquestionably notable and unquestionably neutral.[24] 009o9 (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the WikiProject as Wikiproject Corporation, mistaking it for WP:WikiProject Business. In any case, this is NOT a discussion about paid editing; it is an AfD, and you should NOT have canvassed on WikiProject Cooperation. No one in this entire AfD discussion has mentioned paid editing except you. DGG mentioned it in his nomination as something that at AfC needs careful scrutiny. None of the actual !voters or discussers have mentioned it, and it has no bearing on our !votes. I am not familiar with LaMona, but I can assure you that Drmies, Tokyogirl79, Randykitty, and even DGG are very experienced, very thoughtful, very fair, and very circumspect Wikipedia editors and !voters, and we are basing our opinions on the merits, not on COI (which as I mentioned, only you have brought up, time and again). I think you should take to heart what DGG stated in the post you linked -- you are letting your COI blind you, and your endless attempts to sway the matter are actually doing you and your goals a disservice rather than the reverse. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your opinion on notifying Wikiproject Corporation, this discussion is clearly of interest to that group. Besides, with the well published Wikipedia bias against paid editing, none of them are going to vote here. I want them to be aware of the moving the goal post and subjective reference evaluation tactics that are practiced in AfD.
It is funny, you just listed the exact same set of delete voters from my other AfD [25]. (1384 administrators, and I've drawn the same several twice, voting lock step, I should play the lottery.) They were more careful not to announce their paid editing bias in that discussion, but when they notified each other, "canvassing" as you put it, they were very clear about the content being paid in those communications. I would address a simple refImprove tag, just as diligently on the article's talk page as an Afd, but my first two nominations went straight to speedy or AfD without any other comment. Thus, the difference between a normal discussion and a public deletion discussion is the paid disclosure. Another article, judged "probably notable" by the nominator is now in MfD, while still in AfC.[26]-- 009o9 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Riddic, LisaAnn (2000-08-29). "Reading Report LisaAnn Riddic / Argus Observer / August 29, 2000". Argus Observer. Archived from the original on 2015-08-16. Retrieved 2015-08-16.
    2. "Artist creates live art in new book". Argus Observer. 2000-08-08. Archived from the original on 2015-08-16. Retrieved 2015-08-16.
    3. From the Editorial Reviews at Amazon (link): "Lo Mein goes a little crazy with everything from Bruce Willis to a shooting spree in Disney World... The deaths in Disney World have a twinge of twisted humor; the murder spree exacts the ultimate revenge on the Disneyfication of the world. If any greater lesson is to be derived from "Lo Mein" it's Eringer's denouncement of the irrational litigation rampant in American society compiled with the large amounts of power in the hands of such entities as Walt Disney and CNN."

      Used with permission from Ms. Kate Westrich of The Post. (The Post (Athens, OH), April 6, 2000) -- The Post, Athens, OH, April 6, 2000

    4. "Be warned. You do have to be able to cope with an infinity of explicit cursing and murder. Of course..." -- James A. Cox, Midwest Book Review, May 2000
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lo Mein to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that @Cunard, I had forgotten that those reviews are RS, even if the community says Amazon is not, I broke them out and will contact the organizations for reprints. --Cheers-- 03:17, 16 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lo_Mein_(book)&oldid=1255441795"
  NODES
admin 1
COMMUNITY 2
Note 9
Project 13
Verify 1