Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropic of Cubicle

Vanity. This book hasn't even been published yet, and the publisher seems to be non-notable. Rick K 06:04, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Although I gave those articles a bit of a polish, I'm inclined to agree and vote Delete. Does anyone know if Spork Press is a real publisher or vanity press? —Stormie 06:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Granted, Spork Press is a small press, but it is not a vanity press. They publish a quarterly hard-bound magazine (and archive online) and otherwise put out chapbooks and novels. Just to be clear, unlike vanity presses, publication with Spork is based on decisions by editors, and writers do not pay for publication. Tropic of Cubicle is a small book, yes. But, by all accounts, it is a real book. The point that Rick makes about a "non-notable" publisher seems dubious. Wikipedia has entries for plenty of small presses such as So New Media, with small, devoted followings, but which aren't big money-makers or household names. Wikipedia also has plenty of entries for "small-time" authors and impresarios: Zulkey (Claire Zulkey), Ben Brown, etc. Maybe you guys should reconsider, and allow non-mainstream literature and culture to get by the Wiki gatekeepers now and again. Oh, and, naturally, I vote to Not Delete. -NVFD, Aug 12, 2004
Delete. Google only finds one book published by Spork Press. Andris 12:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
The press is real, and worth keeping. An entry on a inor not-yet-existing book, on the other hand, seems pointless. Delete. -FZ 12:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: NVFD, the book may well achieve notability after its publication. No one here is judging the worthiness of the effort or, honestly, the merits of the press. However, Wikipedia is limited to entries on notable authors and books. After publication, the book will need to sell fairly well to make it into the encyclopedia. This limitation helps keep the Wikipedia both inclusive and yet practical. If you'd like, I think it might be a great idea if you were to set up a user page and store the information on your user page. When the book is published and catches on, gets talked about on NPR, gets a NYT review that makes your cheeks burn, goes on Oprah or whatever, you could push it over into the article space. (BTW, Tropic of Cubicle, and it's not pornographic?! Henry Miller will be ticked.) Geogre 12:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Important note: The listing on VfD is for Tropic of Cubicle and Roderick Maclean. The article on Roderick Maclean is good, and I like it muchly. My vote pertains only to the former. Geogre 12:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. There was a mistake in the section header. The second page in the listing should have been Roderick Maclean (author) who is the author of Tropic of Cubicle, rather than Roderick Maclean'. I just corrected it. If anyone voted based on Roderick Maclean page, please revisit your vote. Andris 13:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, at the time of listing on VfD, the Roderick Maclean article DID refer to the author. The disambiguation was made after the fact. Rick K 19:32, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete both: nonnotable. Getting a book published is truly no big deal, except to the author; being a published author (or book) is not enough to merit an article, by far. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Weak Keep Roderick Maclean (author): He does seem notable, although he's on the edge. What he wrote of himself (it it was him) was not invented. He seems to have the accomplishments that he lists, including many publications. He's not Charles Dickens or even Faith Popcorn, but he passes my test, and when I say that I put reality ahaed of fiction, this is what I mean. A real guy with some pubs is ahead, for me, of a character. Geogre 17:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andris: consult the entry on Spork Press for more information. -- NVFD, Aug 12, 2004
I'm sorry, Geogre, you picked the wrong man for a "real guy". Besides a couple of poems from Tropic of Cubicle at [1] (so, it's a novel with poems interpersed ... ?), there's another poem at [2], with the footer "The pieces (like this one) in Tropic/of/Cubicle the book are character studies for Tropic/of/Cubicle the Broadway musical, which is itself a promotional vehicle for Tropic/of/Cubicle the boardgame and Tropic/of/Cubicle the ice vending machine, among other hotly-anticipated consumer products." Not quite BJAODN material, but pretty good, Roderick (are you there?). Vote: delete, or speedy delete, hotly-anticipated Wikipedia entry Tropic of Cubicle. And delete Roderick Maclean as a vanity entry, unless Geogre has a link for some accomplishments and publications on the web. The Google hits are a little hard to sort out from other people with the same name, and all I'm definitely getting about Roderick Maclean the author that's not about Tropic/of/Cubicle the joke is a note that he was or was scheduled to be the centerfold in the April issue of Naked Male Authors Quarterly, a publication notably lacking in web presence. Bishonen 21:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bishonen, you seem so easily persuaded by a little humor. If it's verifying that Roderick Maclean is real that you're after, it's not difficult to find a few links to writing and references:
TOC excerpt & pic in 3AM Magazine
TOC excerpt in Diagram
Short story in Bullfight
Short story in Midnight Mind
Short story in Spork
TOC excerpt in Spork
Short story in Monkeybicycle
Short story in Eclectica
Recognition in Million Writers Award
Review of short story in Newpages
Random blog entry
Reference to public reading
Pushcart nomination
Oh, and Bishonen, run -- don't walk -- to delete the entry to Nabokov's Pale Fire because you've never heard of poems being used in novels before. -- NVFD, Aug 12, 2004
- "A few" links? Not at all, you've gone to a lot of trouble. Thanks. I don't want to delete the author article for any doubt of the person existing, only for doubt of his "real" encyclopedic quality, and I don't mean to insult you by saying that. Shoot, insult him, I mean. Neither of you, seriously. It's just that Wikipedia goes by present rather than future notability. And for the Tropic of Cubicle article, it's a little unspecific to claim that the upcoming "small book" is "by all accounts" a real book. If some of all the accounts are on the web, could you link to them as well? I appreciate the problem of providing evidence of existence before publication, but, well, that's part of the whole problem of having an encyclopedia entry before publication. Bishonen 00:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete both, vanity --Jia ng 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Not notable. Delete both, IMO. Skyler 02:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Roderick Maclean (author). Is interesting and somewhat notable. Delete: Tropic of Cubicle. Book's not out yet.--Ern 02:35, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Please note that all of the above user's edits have been to VfD discussions. Rick K 04:25, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Tropic of Cubicle. Since it's not yet available in stores, it might achieve sufficient notability by being widely anticipated, or by being the next book in a famous series, or by having a famous author, or by having been in the news for some other reason, but in this case there's no evidence of those things, nor any evidence to suggest that it will probably become notable in the future. If it does, let someone else re-create the article at that time. I abstain for now on the question of Roderick Maclean (author). If the other claims in the article are true, then he's notable enough for me. However, I'll note that a quick search of Google [3] [4] [5] and Wired [6] [7] does not turn up any independent verification of those claims. Keep and maybe expand Spork Press, not that we're actually supposed to be voting on it. —Triskaideka 18:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
merge and redirect Tropic of Cubicle into Roderick Maclean (author). Keep the latter, assuming that the various other claims are accurate. -- Jmabel 19:56, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete "Tropic of Cubicle". It can have an article after it is published and has become notable. NVFD provided proof that "Roderick Maclean (author)" is not a hoax but has not yet convinced me that he meets our standard of notability - delete. Comment: In the future, please submit these as separate nominations. Thanks. Rossami 20:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete both. Can't all News reports of things not yet released just go to Quick Delete? There are people on the Wikipedia project who have written real books that have been available for years whose works are not listed and they aren't crying for them to be listed. Jallan 22:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability and possible self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)