Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memories with Maya

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. ✗plicit 04:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memories with Maya

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Of the 3 sources in the article, 2 are from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Source 2 [1] lists the book under "Recent Books by IEET Fellows and Staff", which means the IEET sources are non-independent. The only other review I could find is this one [2], which is by a HuffPost contributor and therefore not reliable (WP:HUFFPOCON). Astaire (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Astaire (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any reviews by Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist, etc. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find mention in this book through Taylor & Francis, but that's kind of the only thing I found. It looks like the book did get published through Penguin Random House in India as simply "Maya", but all I can find is a sole negative review from the Telegraph. It looks like finding any further sourcing, assuming it exists, will be a pretty difficult thing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking - the T&F book is a trivial mention and the Telegraph review is a bit too thin for my liking (three sentences). Astaire (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I forgot to mention that there are WP:COI concerns as well. The other source in the article (io9/Gizmodo) suggests that there is a relationship between Dsouza and the review's author: It’s coupled with 3D scans of real environments generated by wall-mounted laser cameras (think next-gen Kinect) to insert remote participants seamlessly in real environments, Holodeck-style, DeSouza explained to me.

Also, the creator of the article is Cly3d (talk · contribs), who only showed up to create this page and who shares the same username as the author's Twitter handle, as seen in his Amazon bio [3]. Astaire (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not super common for reviewers to reach out to authors with questions, but it does occasionally happen. I could see them having some level of interaction without it being at a point that would pose a COI. In any case, it's a single source and while the reviewer seems to be notable himself per NPROF (Giulio Prisco), that doesn't make the review enough to establish NBOOK on its own. And I do agree with your assessment of the two sources I found. They aren't really enough to establish notability. I wasn't able to find anything else, so I'll have to argue for a delete as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to pass WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2025 (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.