Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Donovan

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 keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Donovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I came across this while looking through Category:Self-published books and from what I can see, Donovan just doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy. She is a USA Today bestseller, but on the lower end of the spectrum (peaked at the 100s) and other than an interview with USA Today itself, I can't really find where she's been the focus of any coverage in reliable sources. The only remotly halfway usable source was a review by Good E-Reader, but that doesn't look like it'd be considered a usable source per WP:RS. The books seem to be popular, but this looks like it's a case of a popular self-published author that just never managed to gain that coverage to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Seriously? An interview with the author in USA Today isn't enough for notability? I did a brief search on Publisher's Weekly and pulled up enough info to prove this author meets the notability guidelines. The article needs a lot of work but notability isn't in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernNights (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 February 2015‎

• One interview is not enough to show notability. We need multiple in-depth sources to show that she passes notability guidelines. Also, search hits aren't enough to show notability because out of the hits on Publishers Weekly, none of the ones that would give notability are actually about Donovan. Some of those hits only mention her in passing while others don't mention her at all, as they bring up other people with the same first name or last name. This source is actually about Rebecca Paisley, while these two only mention her very briefly in passing, as does this source which has her briefly mentioned in a quote as selling well. Sales numbers do not equal out to notability. It can make her more likely to receive coverage, but it's never a guarantee. If you did a search on the same site with her name in quotation marks (so that we only get hits for articles with "Rebecca Donovan" in them somewhere), then the 83 hits goes down to 6 hits and like I said above, they're all trivial since they're only passing mentions and notifications that something is going to be released- not anything that would show notability. We need more than one USA Today interview to give notability and prove a depth of coverage. I couldn't find anything in-depth other than a ton of blog reviews that we can't use on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is, the only times when one source will suffice is when the source is about an accomplishment that is so overwhelmingly notable that it'd merit a keep on that basis alone, which is usually something along the lines of a major award like an Oscar or the Newbery Medal. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - One interview and passing mentions in trade publications are not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Works have not made an impact great enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has 'reliable sources', here is another one about her signing. booktrade. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Press releases are not reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are they not? I suggest that they are In the (limited)case of simple facts like "Penguin acquire the rights" when the release if issued by Penguin. Not arguing that a press release makes anything notable. just that a corporate press release can be used to establish the fact tat the corporation said or signed something - like a publishing contract.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ideally we would like to see reviews in newspapers or other quality reliable sources. Here is a 2013 interview, in a Rhode Island local-interest magazine called The Bay [1]: useful for its content, but not a very strong indicator of notability. Also, it should be noted that she's no longer self-published, since Amazon Children's Publishing took over her Breath series to inaugurate a new YA imprint [2][3]. Also, for what it's worth, Amazon listed her book at #6 on its 2013 year-end list of top-selling Kids & Teens books. [4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources located by User:Arxiloxos and User:Jonpatterns suffice. Story about her in the Boston Globe, her publishing contract covered in Publisher's Weekly, plus the pub deal with Penguin for British rights, the story in a Rhode Island magazine, the interview in USA Today, these are enough to pass. But this should be a cause for some Wiki self-examination. This aiuthor's books are all over "chick" sites like pinterest, and a remarkable number of young women seem to maintain or participate in book review web sites where they rave about her books. They also buy them. Over 16,000 followers on Twitter. Author appearances. This writer has fans. We need to ask ourselves why Wikipedia has so few editors of the kind (young, female, like to read) who might have created up a better page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. My theories would include, 1. wikipedia links an editors ability to use wiki code with the editors ability to make useful edits - ie. visual editor not default - this makes it less appealing to beginners. 2. many wikipedia editors are more keen on removing information than improving articles - this doesn't make a welcoming environment. 3. wikipedia can be seen as 'dry' and academic, although it contains an abundance of popular culture article - having said that some people would say popular culture has undue weight. 4. the value of cultural commons isn't widely understood. 5. opinions shouldn't be part of wikipedia - therefore its not a suitable platform for expressing opinion - which may be the main motive of bloggers.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, top ten lists on sites like sugarscape.com are the contemporary version of reviews for popular novels. [5], as are shout-outs from such sites (just see how many there have been) [6]. I like User:Jonpatterns theories, and note how closely his point #2 applies to this case. This book was nominated and, as happens far too often, the nom makes a series of assertions about Donovan's failure to show up in searches that turn out not to be true. Some editors do appear over-eager to delete, which can indeed make wikipedia feel more like a combat video game, than like the kind of constructive, collegial, civic project young women might enjoy participating in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claims of 'not showing up in search result' - I wonder if the nominators actually try searching and are bad at it, or they don't bother to search and make an unsubstantiated claim. I wonder if there is a way to check the number of successful and unsuccessful AfDs editors make.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but there absolutely should be. Too many editors assert that searches come up blank when it's patently untrue. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Ip This may be mere incompetence, but at times it appears to be politically motivated [[7], which is somehow more troubling than mere stupidity. Other nominations are are just plain dumb, like this one where an article about an economist is nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was written to promote a physician, (two people, same name) [[8]] It is easy to see when an editor has created pages that were deleted. It ought to be equally simple to see if editors are regularly nominating articles for deletion that are ultimately kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a tool, it is somewhat broken and not intuitive. However it gives rough idea afdstats. Some editors work on hundreds of deletes a year. Some of it is no doubt valid, some less so. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, click on "contributions" and you can click a box marker "Only show edits that are page creations". It would be useful to have such a box for deletions. There are too many frivolous AFDs. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of becoming a bore on this theme, just saw this AFD [9], which could not have been posted had the nom done a proper search. It may have been an honest assertion on the part of the nom, but who would anyone who lacks the ability to search a couple of art reference books venture to delete an article on an early 20th century artist?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did do a search and almost all of the sources posted on the article were ones that I discarded for various reasons, which I've elaborated on below. I need to stress that the Sugar Scape source is not usable since the website is written and maintained by the people who are publishing one of Donovan's books- that's the big reason why I didn't include that one. There's a reason why I didn't count most of the sources and it's not for a lack of searching. Basically, don't assume that I didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE process before nominating the page- there may have been reasons why those sources aren't usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have to say that I'd like to ask that people assume good faith when trying to save an article. Insinuating that the reason I'm nominating the article is because I'm a deletionist, that I didn't do a proper search, that my AfD history should be checked, and so on does not really come across very well. To be honest, a lot of times it can come across as a personal attack even if you didn't mean it to come across as such because you're attacking the integrity of an editor's entire editing history. You may not have even meant it to be about me, but when you say this stuff on an AfD then that's how it comes across. Not only does did this whole conversation come across badly to me, but it also has the unintended side effect of making incoming editors more defensive when it comes to participating- including the closing admin. Many people who have worked with me in prior AfDs would likely vouch that I'm more than willing to compromise on AfDs and I've had multiple instances where I've willingly closed AfDs I've launched. In other words, please do not assume that a nomination was in bad faith, either as a deliberate attempt to get rid of information or because I did not perform a proper search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides that, assuming good faith is a good rule of thumb because people are human and calling someone "dumb" is just plain rude. I know that remark wasn't aimed at me, but still... if I see you calling another editor "dumb" then that puts me on the defensive because you aren't assuming good faith about other editors and I have to wonder if you've done something on other AfDs that other editors may see as aggression or an attack. I've taken part in a lot of AfDs where I've saved an article about a topic that was notable. (Also, if you looked at my edit history you'd also see that I've been here since 2006, that I've rescued various articles rather than take them to AfD, and that I've created over 400 articles.) I rarely say negative things about the nominator because people make mistakes- they're human. The best thing is to source the articles, vote keep, and then put in polite suggestions for future searches rather than browbeat the nominator and use the AfD as a way to insult previous nominations by other editors. If you see that someone has an ongoing problem with bad AfD nominations then the proper place to report that is at WP:ANI or if it's multiple ones by multiple editors, bring it up at the main AfD talk page to see if there's a way to solve the issue. Insulting editors and using an AfD as a place to complain about other AfDs is not the way to accomplish these things. I was going to ignore this, but I'm a little concerned about this becoming a pattern in other AfDs and I want to nip this in the bud before you do this with other editors and someone escalates this to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi User:Tokyogirl79. I have been reading your comments carefully and with an open mind. You, after all, are a far more experienced editor than I. I wish I cold feel that you are reading my comments carefuly. For example, I did not call anyone "dumb". I called an AFD nomination "just plain dumb". It was a nomination for deletion of an article about an economist with a fairly common name, with the nom arguing for deletion on the grounds that all the sources he could find were advertisements for a private practice medical doctor. This was in the course of an (admitted) tangent or rant I was on on the subject not of this article but of the number of needless AFDs that are put up. I NOWHERE accused you of that. What I did write was my hope that this AFD might become the cause of "Wiki self-examination... We need to ask ourselves why Wikipedia has so few editors of the kind (young, female, like to read) who might have created up a better page." about Donovan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your answers have made my point very effectively. I am trying to imagine how I would react to your comments here if I actually was a young woman, a Donovan fan who had come to Donovan's page, seen the AFD, and made a good-faith attempt to keep the page of an author I like on Wikipedia. I think that I would be flattened. And that I would look back on my life as a Wikipedia editor as having been nasty, brutish and short.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ask again, why are we chasing young women off Wikipedia by being combative and by taking down an article on a popular author?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a female editor I can understand this to a degree, but at the same time I don't think that we should cut more slack on articles for female persons just in the hopes that it retains some editors or brings new ones in. The issue with that is that it's not exactly fair to people whose articles on male persons are nominated for and deleted via one of several deletion processes. If new female editors do come on here to argue for the article and their argument is not placed within proper guidelines then we should not keep an article because of that fact because again, while we would like to increase the number of female editors we should also not show them favoritism in the hopes that they'll remain. Not only will that not teach them proper proceedure, but it also runs a very real risk of alienating male editors who perform similar actions but are chastized for it. The drive for female editors on Wikipedia is about equality, not special treatment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • • sigh. Again, you make my point for me. By twisting my words (I argued here for civility, not "special treatment) you continue the dismissive, and - your word - "chastizing" style that makes editing Wiipedia so aversive for people who prefer cooperation to combat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see where asking for additional sources and making sure that all of the usable sources are usable is uncivil- that's kind of the crux of Wikipedia, to be honest, and what you're essentially asking for is that we keep an article based on three sources, one of which is so far unverified as to depth of coverage and one that may not pass as a RS. If new editors do come in just to weigh in on this AfD, I want to make sure that they learn proper procedure from the get go. Trying to save an article based on lackluster sources is not going to benefit them in the long run. Part of the reason that I'm so harsh on AfDs is that we can't guarantee that anyone will continue to gain coverage, especially if we're in a situation where an author has not really received much in-depth coverage and she has never received a review on any of her works. It's entirely possible for an author to continue to release works and still sail under the radar. Sometimes you have an author that will receive one book and gain enough coverage to merit an article for the book, yet they'll never gain any additional coverage for further works. It happens all the time. If by some chance she does gain additional coverage the article can always be re-created, but I don't think we should keep an article based on lackluster sourcing because it may run editors off. I do also have to point out that my remarks to you came in response to you and another editor using this AfD as a forum to complain about AfDs and by extension, the people who opened them. Don't you think that this would be intimidating to incoming editors if you were to see someone complaining about how people don't do work, how things are "dumb", and so on- all without actually assuming good faith on behalf of the nominator. I also have to comment that when you remark that an AfD is "dumb" you are also extending that to the nominator themselves. You don't think that this would not only intimidate new users but also put off other editors? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been asked to re-visit the AfD. However I do not feel that the additional sources show notability for the author. Here's my rundown as to why I still feel that she fails notability guidelines:

So in the end what we have here is one source that is definitely usable and then two local sources that may or may not be usable. I just don't see the depth of coverage here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the detailed reply. I think you are mistaken to take comments as a personal attack. Especially as several AfDs were discussed. It is correct to question processes and reflect on their positive and negative effects. If wikipedia is to progress then these discussions should be welcomed. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Revisiting

-The Bay is one of those glossy, regional lifestyle magazines. Big spreads about glamorous houses. Profiles. It is distributed in Rhode Island and nearby parts of Conn. and Mass.

-The Boston Globe is not a "local" source. It is a major big city and regional newspaper. The brief article, which I read on ProQuest, is about the party the author threw for herself, with a photo of the party goers, who included a publishing exec from Amazon.com.

-The other sources are all reliable for the facts they are cited to support.

-My argument on behalf of this article rests on 2 things, neither of these things is really about the 3 articles about Donovan in reliable sources that User:Tokyogirl79 and I agree on, although their existence obviously matters. What I am arguing is:

-1. - that Donovan and her Breathing books became something of a thing within the publishing industry in 2012/13, when she was seen by Book Trade, Publisher's Weekly, The Boston Globe and others as representative of 2 new phenomena: the new potential online publishing offered to self-published authors, and the growing market for "new adult" books. I believe that this coverage does carry some weight under WP:AUTHOR.

-2. - That notability can be measured not only in terms of profiles in USA Today, but in things like still being at #17 on Amazon's kindle bestseller list [10] almost two years after publication; having a couple of thousand fans rave about your book on GoodReads.com [11]; having 16,000 fans who gush about your books on Twitter [12]; and, yes, being extensively written up on blogs kept by readers and by other authors of new adult fiction. Does this make an author Wikipedia notable? Not under WP:AUTHOR, but perhaps it should since, by ignoring this types of notability we risk not having articles about genuinely popular writes like Donovan on Wikipedia. Even when, as with Donovan, a brief article on a new writer can be sourced to WP reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand your frustration with this, but it really all boils down to coverage in reliable sources. An author's popularity in social media sites or their success doesn't really give notability in and of itself. It can make something more likely to gain coverage, but it's not really a guarantee of notability. The thing about social media sources is that way back in the day this did used to hold some weight but very soon after the websites were launched, unscrupulous companies began offering services to raise Twitter numbers, various authors began writing reviews for their own books to raise the rating, companies and authors buying up copies of their own books to get onto the bestseller rankings on Amazon and other outlets, and so on. I don't think that Donovan did this, but it's happened enough to where these things can't be used for notability on Wikipedia. It'd be wonderful if that would change, but it's unlikely to change any time soon. If you can find a review of her work in a reliable source or find more coverage in general, I'm willing to work with you- it's just that I'm not really comfortable with the sources currently in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no harm in keeping a well-sources article on an early-career auther; indeed I see real utility to having this information available on Wikipedia. You take a different perspective. Since so few editors have weighed in during lo the many weeks this has been up for AFD, it probably makes sense to close this as no consensus; it can be revisited after her next book comes out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The only issue is that AfDs are not really closed on a consensus but on the strength of an argument. I've seen AfDs closed as a "keep" with one good keep argument and vice-versa. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• However to be fair, I am going to ask some other editors to come in and weigh in on the sources and on the tone of the discussion so far. I'm not going to ask them to make an argument for keep or deletion, just to look at the sources and tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The thing is, I'm not against keeping the article. I just want it to be kept on far stronger sources than what we have now and I'd like to have the two potentially usable sources confirmed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable the books are published by a new but important young people's publisher, (Skyscrape, a division of Amazon) . The most widely held book, Barely breathing , is in 506 libraries according to WorldCat [13], and has been translated into German. Out of Breath is in almost as many libraries, and has also been translated into German. The series is apparently translated into Italian also. All this indicates notability for an author. Non-notable authors in this field have books that are in less than about 200 libraries, and books in this field are not translated into other languages unless they are fairly certain to be popular and important. Two books is enough, albeit they are in a single series. The appropriate reviews to meet NAUTHOR will surely be available, and its just a matter of looking for them. (I was asked to comment, but I quite literally have avoided reading whatever it is I was specifically told there, or the previous discussion here, and, as I always do, am commenting on the article itself. ) Now, looking at previous comments: the nooks are not self published. Skyscrape a/c its website is an imprint acquired by amazon, and this is not the same as an Amazon listing for a self published book, where Amazon does nothing more than transmit whatever orders there may be, which it will do for essentially anything. Tokyogirl is a very reliable editor here, especially in this field, and I tend to trust her nominations, but I think she is wrong on this one. USA today is an acceptable source for notability, tho not known for much literary perception. But we do not judge notability on the intrinsic quality of the work. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can respect that- however can you also weigh in on my comments as well? I've been accused of being uncivil and at the very least I'd like to have confirmation that I was not uncivil here. Also my argument was also based on the three sources- can you verify the Boston Globe source? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind- another editor is doing that. Mostly what I also want here is validation that I was not out of line with my comments here. I can accept that the nomination may have been wrong, but I do not like that there were a lot of comments thrown around earlier in this AfD that assumed bad faith by myself and other editors for nominating articles for deletion. I also don't like that when I tried to say something about these comments themselves being in bad faith, I get comments that pretty much accuse me of being responsible for driving female editors away since I'm being too tough on female articles (which also came across like they were asking or leniency for female related articles). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you give the impression that this is about winning, not about editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Tokyogirl79 and E.M.Gregory:- to reiterate the discussion above is not a personal attack on, or to claim Tokyogirl79 made the AfD in bad faith. The assumption of good faith should be made for all editors. The AfD discussion was off topic, but was about improving wikipedia. I've made a user space page for anyone interested in continuing the discussion on process. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I noticed there's some question about one of the subscription-only sources. I looked at the Boston Globe article on Highbeam, and it's three sentences long. It says Donovan had a party to celebrate a book deal through Amazon Children's Publishing. The Bay looks legit. The author seems to be an executive editor at the parent media organization. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said somewhere above, the Globe article, while short, is longer viewed on Proquest than on highbeam. It is about a party. It ran with a large photo of the party this author threw for herself. It gushes about her book deal, with details like who attended, and the fancy venue where it was held.

This Globe article ran in the summer of 2013, when there was a flurry of interest in Donovan in (Publisher's Weekly, Book Trade) because she had moved from self-pub to book contracts (Penguin in Britian; Amazon in U.S.). She was also written up as part of a new, growing market for "new adult" fiction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews should count toward notability. I also think trade publications like Publisher's Weekly and booktrade.info should be counted, because they give background and context that can be very useful when actually writing the article. Which after all the purpose of notability guidelines -- to get reliable sources for writing the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the discussion thus far.... It never helps anyone's case to question the motivations of the nom. Let's just talk about the article. Particularly in this case, the nom is one of the most conscientious contributors I have seen at AfD. She always does the research and is always fair and scrupulous about following the guidelines. There may be differences of interpretation, but that happens. Let's try to discuss it objectively. Also, about the guidelines, I have my own reservations. But it doesn't do any good to vent here. If something in the guidelines isn't satisfactory, the thing to do is go to the talk page and suggest improvements, make your case, and try to get them adopted. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's motivates never were questioned. There was a discussion about the process, and the possibility that some editors may not be using AfD appropriately. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient sourcing has been found. Let up on the nominator already. Here is what the article looked like when Tokyogirl go to it, a reasonable nomination. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the comment directly above? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record It was, as GRuban states, a paltry page when nominated. But what the Nom wrote was : "other than an interview with USA Today itself, I can't really find where she's been the focus of any coverage in reliable sources." I had come to the page while working through the list of author-related deletion debates. I did a quick search, and immediately found solid sources. Thing is, I have seen too many deletions that start with sweeping statements like "can't... find... any..." that prove untrue with even a very shallow search. I do understand that someone like TokyoGirl who edits a lot sees hordes of self-promotional articles and that articles in the category (self-published) that brought her to this page are extremely likely to be flagrant self-promotion by writers with no notability. I am unlikely to ever devote the time she does to Wikipedia, and, therefore, unlikely to develop either her impatience with self-promotion, or her degree of investment in Wikipedia. I do note that experienced editors who act dismissively towards less experienced editors, especially those who act as though they own a particular article or AFD, add to the feeling that Wikipedia is an insiders club that really may not be worth the trouble of joining.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion Request: A request for a Third Opinion was made in regard to a dispute here. That request has been removed (i.e. rejected), mainly because 3O, like all other content dispute resolution forums, will not accept requests made in regard to disputes pending at other dispute resolution forums and that includes forums such as this which have a built-in resolution method. (In this case via the AfD closer who will determine the result of all disputes pending here.) Moreover, there are clearly more than two editors participating here and 3O only handles disputes involving exactly two editors. Next, there was some suggestion of a dispute over conduct and 3O does not handle disputes over conduct: see ANI for conduct matters, or speak to an individual administrator. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching)[reply]

• Comment Tokyogirl is among the most judicious editors I know here. When I commented, I did not even look at the interpersonal portion of it. Looking at it now, there have indeed been a few people over the years who unreasonably do try to remove all articles of a particular type, or even all articles for which there is any possible reason to remove, to the extent that it could be seen as harming the encyclopedia; and there have also been a very few who have tried so hard to save everything possible that they stretch the boundaries of good faith. There are many fewer of both types now, because our standards have gradually become more consistent. I myself have normally tried to rescue everything reasonably rescuable, but have nonetheless found myself deleting many times mote articles than I have rescued; people who disagree with particular decisions have sometimes accused me of trying too hard--in either direction. I normally try to search carefully, but I nonetheless tend to judge how carefully to search by my feeling about the probability of finding anything, and I have been known to miss things. The nom. here is in man respects pretty much like me in her approach to articles -- as I mentioned, we almost always agree. We both make mistakes. I've dealt over the last 8 years with the potential deletion of perhaps 40,000 articles at least, and I think my error rate is 1%--but that's 400 wrongly decided articles. (My view is that the highest acceptable error rate is about 5% )

There is an inevitable tendency to personalize disputes here, particularly deletion disputes, and it is not unreasonable that there should be, especially in areas where there may be fans of a particular author or artist. Very rarely does it represent malice or recklessness. In some areas it can represent prejudice, but fiction has usually not been one of them.

The applicability of the GNG to books & authors is a problem--quite frankly, I wish we did not routinely use it. The only way we get it to yield reasonable results is by interpreting the key words multiple references providing substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources in such a way as to get a consistent and encyclopedic solution. I can usually interpret these in either direction in any borderline case , depending on what result I think we should have. (This is especially true in some of the newer creative fields) There is a presumption that self-publshed books are not notable, nor the authors of them--there are exceptions, including cases like this where the author has been adopted by a regular publisher, and it is necessary to balance the need for being careful against the great unlikelihood of notability, and the expected strong feelings of the fans. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I respect and appreciate the work editors like you and Tokyogirl put into Wikipedia. Where is the proper place for discussing issues with processes such as AfD? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:05, 10 March 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.