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The result was withdrawn; see post here by KittyRainbow offering sources and an intent to improve the article wo/ the plot vio issue. -- Jack Merridew 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

City of Bones

City of Bones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

This is a huge WP:PLOT vio that has been redirected to the author's page and has been repeatedly brought back. There is also content concern as the bulk of the article was uploaded in one shot oldid by a throwaway account -- Jack Merridew 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

oldid of version nominated

• Delete as nom. -- Jack Merridew 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Both, that's an awfully long plot summary. It's a plausible search term, so should be kept as a redirect at least, but the book itself would not seem to be notable at the present time. The current version that is being constantly reverted to is manifestly unsuitable as an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ( talk) 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC). reply

  Redirect has been tried; I'm now seeking Delete and then Redirect to end the edit war. -- Jack Merridew 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  AfD isn't the solution to edit wars. Rray ( talk) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete both and redirect. Overlong plot summary, nothing but plot summary, no real-world information. Kww ( talk) 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The article was rewritten at this point and the following comments reflect the shorter, revised version. The longer, nominated version can be seen here

• Keep article has now been stubbified and contains real-world information, and the plot summary concerns addressed. Catchpole ( talk) 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  please cease being disruptive; absent a positive outcome here, the original plot summary will be reverted to. -- Jack Merridew 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  • We don't delete articles just because someone might make a bad edit to it in the future. If we did, we would have no articles at all. Rray ( talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Moreover, bringing the article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not disruption. As the AfD tag says, "Feel free to edit the article." -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep NYT best-seller. AFD is not the place to bring an edit war. Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Strong keep - This is a long post, but in it I attempt to summarize the history leading up to this nomination for the benefit of the admins. There's a bit of background not disclosed and some misinformation in the nominator's statement.

Both of these articles have been through an AFD back in August [1] with a resolution of No consensus. A more detailed look at the AFD, however, shows that opinions for City of Bones was 3 to keep and 2 to delete, with instructions to discuss merges on the talk pages. No discussion ever happened or course, but merges were immediately instituted anyway, with the predictable revert wars ensuing. It's important to note that there was only one editor, VivianDarkbloom, who kept unmerging the Mortal Instruments article, so this seems to be a backhanded way to impose restrictions her by limiting everybody else rather than dealing her directly. Baby and the bathwater, anybody?

There is also this discussion to consider, in which a proficient editor has stated an intention to work on the article as soon as they read the book. Jack's nomination also ignores the reviews that are starting to be integrated, demonstrating real-world perspective and evidence of notability. In fact, this AFD was filed immediately after Jack was rebuffed for trying to remove a citation that City of Bones was on the NYT 10-best seller list.

I'm not sure what he means by "content concern" just because it appeared fully-fleshed. As someone who patrols new pages, I will say that I'd much rather see a new page with thought and effort behind it than a barely existent stub. Unless he's alleging copyright infringement, I don't see that as an issue but rather some form of inuendo.

The COI concerns are completely moot because the author's article has undergone a massive rewrite [2], courtesy of the same editor that wants to tackle a City of Bones rewrite, and the Mortal Instruments Trilogy page has been reduced to a redirect.

Finally, his drawing attention to the fact that two articles appeared on the same day by two different authors implies some sort of puppetry. Pretty strong allegations with only the most threadbare circumstantial evidence. His comment above that only a positive (delete?) outcome here will result in reversion lacks an assumption of good faith.

• Addendum - I see that while I've been crafting this very long post City of Bones has drastically altered, pretty much invalidating the reasons for the nom in the first place. Figures. I'll be changing my keep to Strong. Pairadox ( talk) 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Lack of verifiable sources and grave concerns about COI and self-promotion. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - a book on the New York Times bestseller list is notable. The rewriting seems to have addressed plot and conflict of interest issues. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per others. Subject is notable, content is encyclopedic, and reliable sources are cited. Rray ( talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Redirect. The article is a trigger for a huge and overwhelming plot summary and the germane points (sales, reception) can be amply indicated on the author's article page. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is about the book itself, not the author, and the documented accomplishments of the book supported by reliable and verifiable sources satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. If one honestly believed that the information belonged on the author's article, the proper response would be Merge. Alansohn ( talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article as it stands now is clearly encyclopedic. It gives evidence of notability and has citations. The nom's other issues can be addressed by further improvements to the article. Also, keep the redirect. It would be wrong to have an article based on a future event, but I feel that a redirect is appropriate. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Since the article was rewritten with third party reviews and a source showing it in a best sellers list, notability is just about established. Also keep the Mortal Instruments article as a redirect. ● BillPP ^{( talk| contribs)} 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep While being an NYT bestseller probably indicates popularity rather than notability, the book has undeniably been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent published works: Publishers Weekly #1, Publishers Weekly #2, School Library Journal #1, School Library Journal #2, The Trades, BlogCritics, Journal of Mythic Arts. As the second book has not yet been published (two months or something to go) I think that The Mortal Instruments Trilogy should remain a redirect, at least for the time being; attempts by people to unnecessarily turn it into an article (i.e. before there are reliable sources to merit that) should be dealt with via reversion, not deletion; possibly some form of protection would be appropriate. I also vote Strong Keep on Cassandra Clare: she "has created [...] a well-known work [...] which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Also, as her article now shows, she is notable for other things - City of Bones may be her first published novel but she was known previously as a fan fiction writer. (There are several reliable sources that discuss this.) And on the subject of conflict of interest - surely in this case that should prompt a review of the content, not deletion. The book and the author are notable, the trilogy probably will be at some point... repeated attempts at POV-pushing, fancruft or similar by the author/fans/anybody should not be a cause for deletion, it should be a cause for vigilance on the part of editors. -- KittyRainbow ( talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  You certainly do have a few good looking sources there. I'm going to withdraw this nom based on your post here and will assume that you will look to improving this article sans the huge plot vio. Please note that I did not nominate the author article, I only commented on it's early history. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• I've always wondered about books that have been published by prominent publishing houses. I hate the word, but I can kind of see a granted notability there. However, regardless of that, the sources provided above give enough notability for me. I (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment all prominent trade publishers publish a large number of unsuccessful books--its the nature of the business. But being a best seller is notable. Every books every listed in the NYT best sellers is probably appropriate for an article--they will all have been reviewed or discussed in multiple places. DGG ( talk) 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - bestseller - issue appears to be about article quality and instability, which is not addressed in this forum. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:29, 12 January 2008 (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.