Talk:The Myth of the Zodiac Killer

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Article is to be merged into Zodiac Killer per AfD, so there will be no article left for DYK; closing nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Police sketch of a person purported to be the Zodiac Killer

• ... that, in his non-fiction book The Myth of the Zodiac Killer, Thomas Henry Horan contends that the Zodiac Killer (police sketch pictured) never really existed? [1]

• Reviewed: Forthcoming Template:Did you know nominations/Joe the Pigeon

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 06:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC).

• Article is new enough (created 12/22), long enough, and cited appropriately. Earwig detected no concerns. The hook is short enough, interesting, and accurately sourced. Photo license states it is PD. QPQ remains to be done. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Cbl62, the hook wording is too repetitive, and we try not to print names with no Wikipedia article on the main page. I suggest something like:
• ALT1: ... that the author of a 2014 non-fiction book contends that the Zodiac Killer (police sketch shown) never really existed? Yoninah (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

alt1 looks good. Its succinct, hooky, short enough, and sourced. Looks like the QPQ is still needed. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cbl62! QPQ added. Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Article now good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Chetsford: Returning this to the nominations page following it being tagged for notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's been nearly two weeks since the nomination was reopened, and although there was a discussion on notability on the article's talk page, it petered out over a week ago, though the consensus seemed to be heading toward non-notable. Since the article cannot appear on the main page (via DYK) so long as the notability tag remains, if nothing happens in the next couple of weeks to move the issue forward, the nomination should probably be marked for closure. (Should it be nominated at AfD, then this nomination will be put on hold until the AfD closes one way or the other.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

With the nominator not having edited in several days and the notability concerns unlikely to be resolved for the foreseeable future, it appears that there is no longer a path forward for the nomination. As such, this is now regrettably marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Submitted at AfD to get a final resolution to this issue. Hopefully we'll get an answer one way or another. Edge3 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Zodiac Killer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The article has been merged per the AFD discussion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability tag

A tag was recently posted to this article questioning its notability under WP:NB. Please comment if you below if you believe this qualifies under GNG or NB, if this article should be sent to AfD, or if this article should be improved before removing the notability template. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Qualifies Under NB criterion 1 ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.") The book is the singular subject of an article in MEL Magazine [2], and is the singular subject of three separate episodes of Generation Why [e.g. [3], etc.]. It probably also qualifies under GNG due to aforementioned sources combined with paragraph-length coverage in El Confidencial, ABC, and the Wild Blue Press book The Case of the Zodiac Killer, all listed in the References section, plus additional coverage not contained therein. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• The MEL Magazine source does not appear to be about this book at all; it's not mentioned, and the article links to a different book by the same author. The podcast cited is an interview with the author and appears to fail note 2 of NB criterion 1. Could you quote the paragraphs that you believe may qualify under GNG? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The book that's the topic of this article is a compendium of three previously published volumes so the MEL Magazine article does, indeed, cover the book. "appears to fail note 2 of NB criterion 1" I'm unclear what part of note two it fails. "Could you quote the paragraphs that you believe may qualify under GNG?" Yes:

"Cada cierto tiempo aparece una nueva que intenta responder a la gran pregunta: ¿quién era el asesino del zodiaco? Una de la más impopulares es la de Thomas Henry Horan, un antiguo profesor de San Luis que, hace dos años, publicó «The Myth of the Zodiac Killer» (El mito del asesino del zodiaco), en el que intenta desmontar la existencia de dicho criminal." [4]

"Una de las más impopulares, aunque difundidas, es la del antiguo profesor de San Luis Thomas Henry Horan, autor de 'The Myth of the Zodiac Killer', que, como su nombre indica, intenta desmontar la existencia de dicho asesino. Simplemente, se juntó el hambre de un puñado de agresores e imitadores con las ganas de comer de la policía." [5]

Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Those do not appear to meet the "significant coverage" requirement of GNG, and I don't agree we can say that an article that doesn't mention this book at all "covers" it. NB criterion 1 note 2 requires that the work be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. While these are not the main subject of the articles in question they are more than a mere glancing mention. Per our guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." "I don't agree we can say that an article that doesn't mention this book at all " I disagree that a digital-first article that hyperlinks to the book doesn't constitute a mention of said book. Chetsford (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is indeed a hyperlink to this book (I don't see one), that would be a mention but far from the "singular subject of the article" as claimed above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing independent coverage to substantiate NBOOK here-- with the caveat that I don't speak spanish and don't trust google translate. Looking at the english sources I would !vote something along the lines of 'weak selective merge' to Zodiac Killer. It's rather telling that I found no reviews specifically dedicated to the book in English. The author seems to have gotten a bit of coverage regarding his theory, so I wouldn't consider deletion appropriate. The magazine article is good coverage of the author's theories-- though not necessarily a high quality source, and the podcasts aren't independent as interviews of the author. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• The whole article screams self-promotion. I say delete it.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not object at all to an AFD nomination. In fact, I would prefer having the article either conclusively deleted or kept, rather than it simply sitting in limbo. Chetsford (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)