Deletion of Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse

Comment: Agreeing with above "Keeps", I reiterate that James Wesley Rawles is the most well-known author of survivalist-prepper non-fiction and fiction books and is indeed notable as are all of his books since they are both on New York Times Bestseller list and Amazon.com Top Ten.  All four of Rawles books have been published in audio format by Audible.com http://www.audible.com/search/ref=pd_auth_1?searchAuthor=James+Wesley%2C+Rawles and suggests notability of his books. This is not the case with many authors to have four books published with Audible. '''Keep''' since it does indeed comply with , which insists that only "The book has been the subject of multiple, 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 and reviews." Don't forget that  does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is not reasonable for those persons suggesting AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. The majority of reviews for Rawles 4 books are indeed web-based, since the Preparedness -Survivalist Movement is mostly a web phenomena. In addition to many web sites, that I could list if one wishes it. Notable non-web sources are New York Times Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WSPD, and WBZ - notable since each have their own Wikipedia pages. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines or radio-TV interviews), since the prepper movement is strongly a web/blog phenomena. Signing as an http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism | Wiki Inclusionist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: but make sure book is mentioned in author's or previous book's page. Interesting book, interesting subject matter.  Picked commenting on this AfD because I saw the title, and was curious about the premise of the book and wanted to learn more.  Unfortunately, there aren't any reliable sources available.  The best I could find is already cited (nytimes link), but it's coverage is pretty trivial.  A book review in a |reliable source would make this work notable, but unfortunately no such article exists that I can find
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: for failing the rigors of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: The source information mostly is news articles mentioning the book. The first was a mention in http://blog.newsok.com/bamsblog/2011/10/04/new-releases-for-oct-4-2011-jason-boland-the-stragglers-buck-rick-riordan-and-more/ Daily Oklahoman October 4, 2011. Then there was a menton of the book being #34 on USA TODAY's Weekly Best Selling Books list for the week of October 12, 2011. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2017469929_redoubt10.html Seattle Times February 10, 2012 is more about Rawles than his book. Then there's a brief mention in http://mondediplo.com/2012/08/17preps Le Monde Diplomatique August 1, 2012 (it just lists the book by name. Then the book was #10 on Publishers Weekly fiction bestsellers for October 14, 2012. That's really all there is. It's not enough for a stand alone article per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The author has been directing people to come to this AfD from his blog and there's a lot of new users, SPAs, and people logging in after years of not editing on Wikipedia. Please read over all of the arguments in this AfD carefully and I'd like to remind any new incomers that arguments for keeping '''''MUST''''' avoid anything listed in  and that in order to salvage the article, you must provide reliable sources. Saying that it's  is not a valid argument and neither is . Sales, no matter how plentiful, do not count towards notability. In-depth coverage in what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources is what ultimately matters
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE||WP:POPULARITY)

Comment: for complying with , which requires only that "The book has been the subject of multiple, 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 and reviews." There is no doubt that these books have been the subject of multiple reviews by various websites, radio commentators, etc. It's worth noting that  does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is inappropriate for those supporting the AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. Nevertheless, the New York Times Sunday Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WBZ, and WSPD have their own pages here on Wikipedia, so they must be notable. These sources, plus many other works in sources such as EMPAct radio and Night Owl Reviews, are surely sufficient to prove notability according to the community's agreed-upon standard as clearly defined in .  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/50.135.212.53|50.135.212.53
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Please be aware that popularity does '''''NOT''''' count as an argument to keep an article. Popularity is not how things are decided on Wikipedia and that no matter how many of you come on here with arguments that essentially boil down to |"I like it", that's not how articles are kept and that these things are not decided on a vote. Your arguments have to fall within the boundaries of  and not within . Reliable sources are necessary to show that these books pass  and most importantly, they have to be specifically about this book. Sources that are about the author do not count towards notability for this specific book. Saying that the books exist or that they sell well or are on the shelves of various bookstores also does not count towards notability. If that was the case, then there'd be many more articles for books on Wikipedia. Existing is not notability and notability is not inherited by the author being notable. Only rarely can an author be so notable that all of their works inherit notability and Rawles is not one of those authors. This isn't a slight, as less than 1% of any author that ever existed has this level of notability and less than 5% of any living or deceased persons that ever existed in any given field has this level of notability that extends to their works, whether literary, scientific, or otherwise. There are no sources to show notability for these books and that's pretty much the long and short of it. The big thing about a lot of the “sources” put on the article is that they aren’t the type that gives notability. Being on bestseller lists doesn’t give notability per Wikipedia’s rules, not even when it’s the New York Times’s bestseller list. Do I necessarily agree with this? No, not always, but that’s pretty much the way it is. We can’t keep an article because it’d hurt your feelings to have a book deleted by an author that you particularly like. I’ve had to vote “delete” on AfDs for various articles that contained things that I’ve liked and would have liked to have kept, but the articles didn’t pass notability guidelines. My original move for these books was to merge the pertinent data into the main article and redirect there, but my actions were reverted because the books “exist”. Again, existing is not notability. As far as showing that these books were particularly influential, you’d have to prove that in reliable sources. Just for the new people coming in, a reliable source must be independent of the author. Anything he personally publishes, whether via his blog, his books, his agents, his publisher, or anyone involved with him or the process of getting his books put into the general public, anything from those sources is considered to be . You can’t use those to show notability or to really back anything up. You have to back up the claims from primary sources with multiple independent and reliable sources. Here’s where the difficulty comes in when it comes to things within a group that isn’t uber-mainstream: you have to put it in reliable sources. Most blogs aren’t usable, which means that you can’t just run out and post a blog claiming that this is notable. It won’t work and if it was that easy, I’d have created a million blog entries to save various articles from deletion. The only time a blog is usable is if it’s by someone like the editor of a paper such as the New York Times or if it’s by a very notable person, such as someone who is routinely quoted in newspapers or books. Most people don’t reach this level of notability and reliability. As far as when you do have people who reach that level, you have to actually link to something they published. We can’t go by quotes posted by Rawles on his website because we have no way of knowing how much of it might have been edited or revised to look good, or even pertains to the actual book at hand. We have to look for the actual source, which is why most author blurbs for various books are never used. It’s fairly common in the literary world to have blurbs for past books appear on current books, revised to appear as if they are for the new one. You can never take anything at face value. Review-wise, they only count if they’re posted by reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, New York Times, and the like. Reviews by “average” people such as you and myself don’t count, no matter how many of them there might be. Is it frustrating that you could have something with a decent fan following within its niche not pass notability guidelines? You betcha, but “it’s popular” stopped being a valid argument years ago when certain authors (which shall not be named) started creating fake reviews and posts about themselves in order to bolster arguments to keep their articles, which is why the guidelines for books are so strict now. To show notability you have to provide independent and reliable sources to show that these specific books are notable. Not show that the genre its posted in is notable. Not show that the author is notable. Not show that there are lots of people in the prepper movement. You have to specifically show that Founders and Survivors are notable by showing reliable sources that cover these specific books in depth. Passing mentions in relation to other things does not count. That’s the long and short of it. No amount of “keeps” will salvage the article if it lacks these reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:AADD||WP:NBOOK||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: I have reviewed the sources listed above and done a search, but do not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There is significant coverage, but it is invariably in sources that are not |reliable. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it is not significant. A lot of the coverage is independent of the subject, but all of it is either unreliable or trivial. The good-faith keep !votes uniformly fail to cite sources that could contradict the above conclusions. This is not a  situation, because the limited verifiable material can live quite happily in the author's article. Delete for failure to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IAR||WP:GNG)

Comment: Without references in Reliable Sources that cover this book significantly, I do not see how this passes  or. Some above have suggested that those voting "delete" are requrring hard copy sources and that this raises a bias problem. I am not suggesting the sources need to be hard copy, as  does not. They do need to be |Reliable Sources though. Those are not to be found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BKCRIT||WP:GNG||WP:BKCRIT||WP:RS)

Comment: I think the book in question is an important part of a larger movement (Prepping) that is highly influenced by the author (Rawles). According to  one of the standards for notability is: ''"The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement."'' While not a political or religious movement per se, the Survival/Prepper movement is notable enough to have it's own page (Survivalism) and it is at some level a political movement. Overall I think deleting the article does more harm then good. As a secondary vote I say '''Merge''' if we decided not to keep it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)