Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An attempt at AfD was made by 110.20.234.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and I agree--plus I can do this more easily. Non-notable book, self-published, promotional, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this started. This book is not used as a reference in the literature about the Matrix and is unreviewed. Therefore, this article should be deleted. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests that WP:BKCRIT is met.--Rpclod (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy as having no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. It is almost six years old yet has not been remarked on in secondary sources. Also neither of the EL's worked when I tried them. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Deadlinks just take initiative. I found them archived by the Wayback Machine: [1] [2] a great tool.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- If the final decision is to delete it will also need to be removed from Template:The Matrix. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

author:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note to anon IP 110.20.234.69: I found Goodreads review and Indiolink review and it sourcing other tomes.[3][4] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads reviews are user-generated, and the Indiolink review seems to be user-generated as well - the byline is a single name, and there is a prominent link asking for people to submit their reviews at the top of the page. My understanding is that user-generated reviews generally aren't helpful for getting articles to stick on Wikipedia. Thanks for the additional book in which this book is cited, however I can't see where this book is cited in the second book, Jacking in to the Matrix Franchise. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the key to WP:RS is editorial oversight, and while some Goodreads reviews may be"user-generated", the site appears to have editorial oversight of their published reviews... enough so that it sources many articles here on Wikipedia. This same reasoning seems to apply to California-based Indolink. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:16, 16 August 2015 (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.