Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Violin Diary

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Violin Diary

[edit]
The Violin Diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable self-published book, not even available on Amazon.com. Page contains numerous external links to non-existent pages in an apparent effort to falsely fluff up its importance. bd2412 T 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I was wrong about the external links being false - the original author used incorrect syntax, so they came up as errors when I tried to visit them. I have now fixed them, but I see nothing that convinces me that the work is notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
— 72.73.119.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Wow, I've been following the back and forth postings between Melia and MuZemike and its disgraceful on both of your parts. This was inappropriately flagged and I believe it's worthy of an encyclopedia article. Especially since they had a long commentary about it on on television, which I believe that Melia mentioned. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Woodyallenfan2004 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
1. it has been "the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." It clearly fails this one.
2. Winner of a major literary award. It fails this one.
3. "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." Again, fails this one.
4. "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Fails this one.
"5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." And fails this last one.
In addition, this book is self-published, and "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". I can see no justification for calling this book notable, it should be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

— 66.108.167.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just for 48 hrs. Anyways the person has left wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:BK: dubious publisher, not held in any libraries (no OCLC number on worldcat.org), etc. VG ☎ 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable book, clear fail, clear delet.Theseeker4 (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any criteria per WP:BK. It has an ISBN, a few reviews, and that's about it. The book is also self-published via Lulu, which is indicative of non-notability unless notability can be attributed from other sources. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The book is not listed in worldcat. The author is not listed in worldcat. The claimed author of the published review is not listed anywhere Sometimes a self-published book can get popular/notable despite such indications--but the very few comment on the web sources given, and the total of 10 ghits for "violin diary" norcross as a search string, show very clearly otherwise. This is one case where I would object to moving the material into even userspace unless some indications of possible notability were given. If in a few months I'm wrong, of course, that's always possible. But now I would suggest a rapid close to this to avoid serving indirectly as publicity. DGG (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fails WP:BK and snowball close per DGG ukexpat (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No suggestion of notability in long advertisement of an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's obvious to anyone outside of the small world of Wikipedia that there is a serious bias against Amelia Nymph and her article. The insulting teaming up against her and the article in question has caused yet, another editor to give up on this "encyclopedia." If that's what you want to call it. To want to create a database with the sum of all human knowledge, as Wales once said, isn't possible with these practices and I highly suggest new reform is needed. Yes, I have few to no edits and I don't really care, this is just ridiculous how you guys have treated her hard work. 74.64.120.155 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.64.120.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Violin_Diary&oldid=1138860058"