78:
638:
I would like to say that the comment that "this is not a ballot" evokes the statement, "Oh, wonderful. Then the WikiElitists will turn this whole thing in their favor, delete the article and it will be all over." But that would be sour grapes. Instead, I think I shall use the opportunity to ask you
642:
If this is not a ballot and not a popularity contest (despite Shawn's comment that the big issue is a lack of notoriety on Ms. Ryelle's part), then why, therefore, is there a link to a website that provides a vote count? Surely a vote count doesn't mean anything if the moderators in charge of pages
564:
In other words, if you don't have citations from some high and mighty source, forget ever making a page...the WikiElitists will look down their noses at you and get your page deleted as soon as possible. My question is, how much longer are you guys going to continue refuting my work? Why not stop
533:. "I heard on Twitter" is not a useful argument here, even if you could produce appropriately-dated quotes from Twitter (which I very much doubt is possible, but don't waste your time proving me wrong), because Twitter users and/or Amazon reviewers are not arm's-length third-party sources of
505:. I heard on Twitter that some of Ryelle's intended reviewers are relatively new Amazon users and they aren't allowed to review because borrowing her books don't count toward Amazon's "wait 48 hours after purchasing before reviewing" rules. You shouldn't hold that against her
537:
opinion and thus their statements are of negligible value to this discussion. The function of
Knowledge is not to turn any and all self-published writers into E.L. James -- its function is to document them after they attain that level of
387:. The fan fiction entries are two years old and some are even older (like the listing from fanfiction.net under the name "Dayanara Ryelle" which doesn't even represent a valid account). If we could change Google that easily, then we would
399:
to review independently published and small-time authors, we'd miss a lot of good literature. Despite the vanity issue that arises when authors use sites like Lulu and CreateSpace, some people just can't get published on a traditional
281:
456:. E.L. James started as a fan fiction author and you wouldn't dare look down your noses at her! Besides, how is one supposed to gain "notoriety", as you say, if all avenues are not open to them?
85:
275:
236:
337:
241:
516:
442:
209:
204:
463:
213:
94:
196:
124:
495:
I think this person is saying, "How do you expect people to become famous if you quash the ability for people to research them?"
17:
296:
551:
377:
263:
486:
345:
325:
110:
83:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
667:
257:
40:
520:
312:
Characterized online as a "fanfiction author", she does not meet our notability guidelines for biographies or
565:
wasting your time and just delete the bloody page already? Or is looking down your nose at me much more fun?
648:
625:
621:
603:
574:
570:
553:
524:
490:
471:
438:
421:
417:
405:
391:
make ourselves look like celebrities, would we not? Furthermore, if we wait for "famous" third parties like
379:
349:
329:
253:
61:
482:
467:
341:
321:
200:
156:
663:
644:
617:
566:
434:
413:
36:
303:
512:
459:
192:
140:
114:
67:
594:. Also, looks like a lot of socks supporting the article here. Closing admin should ignore them.
289:
99:
612:
To quote the template posted by Shawn, it's not the number of votes that count, it's the content
546:
372:
146:
77:
368:
indicating that an arm's-length expert has ever given critical attention to her or her books.
643:
being deleted are taking everyone's arguments "in good faith"? (Am I missing something here?)
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
662:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
269:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
599:
587:
313:
56:
616:
the votes that counts. Remember "good faith"? Or do you not put much stock in templates?
404:
Not to mention the fact that her website is reporting over 300 copies "sold" through the
481:
Are you saying that having a
Knowledge article is an "avenue" to gaining "notoriety"?
543:
446:
369:
591:
365:
317:
174:
162:
130:
230:
109:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
595:
539:
361:
53:
656:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
72:
103:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
424:(Edited by Jamie's FanGirl on July 21, 2012 at 10:52p EDT)
445:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
52:
under G7; no prejudice against creation of a new article.
226:
222:
218:
288:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
670:). No further edits should be made to this page.
360:. Self-published via Lulu, which attracts no
302:
123:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
93:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
338:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
336:Note: This debate has been included in the
335:
97:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
117:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
7:
316:. I have not been able to find any
24:
76:
408:'s free book promotion. Surely
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
113:on the part of others and to
318:independent reliable sources
412:has to be worth something.
687:
626:15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
604:09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
575:06:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
554:18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
525:18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
491:17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
472:14:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
422:05:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
380:21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
350:21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
330:21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
62:06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
659:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
397:The Wall Street Journal
320:indicating notability.
155:; accounts blocked for
125:single-purpose accounts
95:policies and guidelines
406:Kindle Lending Program
431:Note to closing admin
107:by counting votes.
86:not a majority vote
393:Publisher's Weekly
639:to enlighten me.
515:comment added by
483:Shawn in Montreal
462:comment added by
450:
352:
342:Shawn in Montreal
322:Shawn in Montreal
188:
187:
184:
111:assume good faith
678:
661:
527:
509:Jamiesfangirl.
474:
428:
366:reliable sources
364:; I can find no
307:
306:
292:
244:
234:
216:
182:
170:
154:
138:
119:
89:, but instead a
80:
73:
59:
48:The result was
34:
686:
685:
681:
680:
679:
677:
676:
675:
674:
668:deletion review
657:
636:
549:
517:207.179.119.115
510:
457:
414:Jamie's FanGirl
375:
249:
240:
207:
193:Dayanara Ryelle
191:
172:
160:
144:
128:
115:sign your posts
71:
68:Dayanara Ryelle
57:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
684:
682:
673:
672:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
607:
606:
580:
579:
578:
577:
559:
558:
557:
556:
547:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
476:
475:
451:
402:
401:
382:
373:
354:
353:
310:
309:
246:
186:
185:
81:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
683:
671:
669:
665:
660:
654:
653:
652:
650:
646:
645:Jamiesfangirl
640:
634:A Perspective
633:
627:
623:
619:
618:Jamiesfangirl
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
576:
572:
568:
567:Jamiesfangirl
563:
562:
561:
560:
555:
552:
550:
545:
541:
536:
532:
529:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
508:
504:
501:
500:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:Jamiesfangirl
432:
427:
426:
425:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
305:
301:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
255:
252:
251:Find sources:
247:
243:
238:
232:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
180:
176:
168:
164:
158:
152:
148:
142:
136:
132:
126:
122:
118:
116:
112:
106:
102:
101:
96:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
75:
74:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
658:
655:
641:
637:
613:
583:
534:
530:
511:— Preceding
506:
502:
464:74.82.64.144
458:— Preceding
453:
430:
409:
403:
396:
392:
388:
384:
357:
311:
299:
293:
285:
278:
272:
266:
260:
250:
178:
166:
157:sockpuppetry
150:
139:; suspected
134:
120:
108:
104:
98:
90:
84:
49:
47:
31:
28:
276:free images
540:notability
362:notability
91:discussion
664:talk page
588:WP:AUTHOR
314:WP:AUTHOR
147:canvassed
141:canvassed
100:consensus
37:talk page
666:or in a
544:Ubelowme
513:unsigned
460:unsigned
443:contribs
370:Ubelowme
237:View log
179:username
173:{{subst:
167:username
161:{{subst:
151:username
145:{{subst:
135:username
129:{{subst:
39:or in a
584:Delete.
531:Comment
282:WP refs
270:scholar
210:protect
205:history
143:users:
50:Deleted
614:within
596:Qworty
586:Fails
535:expert
400:basis.
358:Delete
254:Google
214:delete
592:WP:BK
297:JSTOR
258:books
242:Stats
231:views
223:watch
219:links
121:Note:
16:<
649:talk
622:talk
600:talk
590:and
571:talk
521:talk
503:Keep
487:talk
468:talk
454:Keep
439:talk
418:talk
410:that
395:and
385:Keep
346:talk
326:talk
290:FENS
264:news
227:logs
201:talk
197:edit
54:Wily
542:.
447:XfD
389:all
304:TWL
239:•
235:– (
175:csp
171:or
163:csm
131:spa
105:not
651:)
624:)
602:)
573:)
523:)
507:or
489:)
470:)
449:.
441:•
433::
429:—
420:)
348:)
340:.
328:)
284:)
229:|
225:|
221:|
217:|
212:|
208:|
203:|
199:|
181:}}
169:}}
159::
153:}}
137:}}
127::
647:(
620:(
598:(
569:(
548:U
519:(
485:(
466:(
437:(
416:(
374:U
344:(
324:(
308:)
300:·
294:·
286:·
279:·
273:·
267:·
261:·
256:(
248:(
245:)
233:)
195:(
183:.
177:|
165:|
149:|
133:|
58:D
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
