436:
generally speaking
Goodreads should absolutely never be linked to at all in a Knowledge article, not as a source or even as an external link. The only exception to this is that we have it used as a primary source on the actual Goodreads article, but that really only works for the actual Goodreads wiki article. Now if the book had won the contest then linking to the contest page would be another exception but for the most part it would be better to link to an independent and reliable source commenting on the book winning the contest. As far as the other content goes, I removed it because it wasn't neutrally written. It was very non-neutral, being written from a fan or promoter's perspective. Articles must be neutrally written. Phrases such as "For most of the book, Jorg is 14 years old, which makes the brutal unforgiving darkness/grittiness featured in the book even more alarming and offensive to some sensitive readers." are from one person's perspective/opinion and could be considered to be original research and also somewhat seems like a bit of a barbed statement against people who didn't care for the book. The other reason I removed so much was that we didn't really have any independent and reliable sources to back up the claims made by the primary sources. You can use primary sources (things that are published by the author, his publisher, or anyone involved with him), but only if you have multiple sources from places that are considered to be independent and reliable per Knowledge's guidelines. This is where it can get tricky for a lot of niche writers because most of the non-review coverage has been in blogs and other sources that wouldn't be considered a reliable source per
392:. I did a major, MAJOR rehaul of the page and removed almost every source on there. I left the B&N source since it is official, although I do want to stress that it would be considered trivial. Being on a list does not give notability, not even if you were on the New York Times list. It just makes it more likely that sources could be found. By the same standards, simply publishing does not give you notability regardless of who you published through. I also want to note that being a finalist for an award does not matter. What matters is if the person actually won the award and if the award would be notable. Most awards are not so notable that they would give absolute notability or even contribute towards notability at all. Goodreads' awards would probably fall between "totally not notable" and "contributes towards notability but does not in itself give absolute notability". All of that aside, a search brought up quite a few reviews of his books. I did find an interview that wouldn't be considered a primary source, but I'm not sure if it'd be a RS or not. It's in the EL section if anyone wants to take a look. I think that overall there's just enough for this author to barely squeak by notability guidelines, as he's received reviews from Locus, Tor.com, and the AV Club. There's some other reviews as well, but these three seemed to be the biggies. There's always the option of creating an article for
413:
personal blog and from interviews he's done, but I guess it is better now with it having just larger/more prestigious sites. I'm sure that his second book King of Thorns is going to receive more recognition as it is a better book, but it has only been out for less than a month. I don't know how to add it, but there is a picture you could add to the wiki info, here's a link to a high quality author photo:
396:
itself since most of the coverage surrounds the first book but right now I don't see any problem with the author's page existing and the book titles redirecting to his page, as there's not much more that would be placed on the book page that can't be placed on the author page. I also changed the name
435:
Well, the big thing with
Goodreads is that it is pretty much completely unusable as a reliable or even trivial source. There's nothing at that site that gives notability in the slightest apart from the book potentially winning an award there, which it didn't win. I know that you're new here, but
412:
I don't totally agree with having so much removed (especially the goodreads information/ratings) but I suppose that less is more, especially in a
Knowledge page. It's also now much more neutral, something that I couldn't do because I am a big fan. I really used interesting info I found from his
444:
if you have any questions about sources. But again, Goodreads is not usable as any source that can give notability and the ratings on that site don't matter here, mostly because just about anyone can edit there or post a review. It's not reliable. Even if all of the reviews are genuine and not
417:
Thanks for your work, and hopefully the page will be kept now. He might not be famous outside of the fantasy community, but he is a rising star, and I believe he's definitely at a similar level as other fantasy authors that are currently on wikipedia.
182:
83:
279:
criteria as he has been a finalist for various writing awards, and he has received significant critical success from his books Prince of Thorns and King of Thorns, both published by Ace
Voyager.
176:
78:
137:
142:
250:
110:
105:
114:
466:- notable enough for 4 books. He is not a flash-in-the-pan writer and sources provided look good. As edited now, I vote keep. It can be improved.
97:
441:
494:
475:
454:
427:
406:
384:
351:
318:
288:
264:
242:
62:
197:
375:. In the best source proffered, from HarperCollins, he interviews himself! That hardly meets the requirement of a secondary source.
164:
440:. Reliable doesn't always mean mainstream, but that's generally what it usually boils down to. Since you're new, I recommend asking
17:
158:
154:
101:
445:
someone posting multiple fake reviews in either direction, the ratings there don't really mean anything to
Knowledge.
204:
513:
40:
490:
93:
68:
509:
450:
402:
170:
55:
36:
486:
471:
419:
347:
280:
238:
190:
485:- seems notable enough given the awards nominations and so on, for the type of genre literature.
423:
284:
271:
I don't believe that this page should be deleted because I think that Mark
Lawrence meets the
260:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
508:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
446:
398:
380:
364:
330:- I also saw this primary reference, but I can not find any substantial secondary coverage.
314:
298:
276:
218:
467:
331:
222:
372:
272:
214:
437:
368:
306:
302:
256:
131:
414:
376:
310:
305:
with a branch of HarperCollins, a big publisher, which might be considered more
297:: Disinterested third party here. The article seems to rely heavily on
502:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
213:
Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails
397:
of the article to "author" since that's generally the standard.
84:
Articles for deletion/Mark
Lawrence (Writer) (2nd nomination)
127:
123:
119:
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
516:). No further edits should be made to this page.
415:http://princeofthorns.com/images/me_an_c2.jpg
203:
8:
251:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
249:Note: This debate has been included in the
79:Articles for deletion/Mark Lawrence (Writer)
248:
76:
442:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
7:
75:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
495:00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
476:00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
455:11:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
428:20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
407:08:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
385:00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
352:16:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
319:16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
289:06:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
265:02:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
243:02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
63:05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
301:sources. However I did find
533:
505:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
94:Mark Lawrence (Writer)
74:AfDs for this article:
69:Mark Lawrence (Writer)
48:The result was
267:
254:
524:
507:
394:Prince of Thorns
344:
339:
334:
255:
235:
230:
225:
208:
207:
193:
145:
135:
117:
58:
57:Mr. Stradivarius
34:
532:
531:
527:
526:
525:
523:
522:
521:
520:
514:deletion review
503:
340:
335:
332:
231:
226:
223:
150:
141:
108:
92:
89:
72:
56:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
530:
528:
519:
518:
498:
497:
487:Green Cardamom
479:
478:
460:
459:
458:
457:
410:
409:
387:
357:
356:
355:
354:
322:
321:
299:self-published
269:
268:
211:
210:
147:
88:
87:
86:
81:
73:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
529:
517:
515:
511:
506:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
443:
439:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
343:
338:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
266:
262:
258:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
234:
229:
220:
216:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
144:
139:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
80:
77:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
60:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
504:
501:
482:
463:
411:
393:
389:
360:
341:
336:
327:
303:an interview
294:
270:
232:
227:
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
54:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
447:Tokyogirl79
399:Tokyogirl79
177:free images
510:talk page
468:Jrcrin001
365:WP:AUTHOR
277:WP:AUTHOR
257:• Gene93k
219:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
512:or in a
420:BigZ7337
307:reliable
281:BigZ7337
138:View log
39:or in a
361:Delete.
328:Comment
295:Comment
183:WP refs
171:scholar
111:protect
106:history
377:Qworty
373:WP:BIO
363:Fails
311:Drm310
273:WP:BIO
215:WP:BIO
155:Google
115:delete
438:WP:RS
369:WP:BK
198:JSTOR
159:books
143:Stats
132:views
124:watch
120:links
16:<
491:talk
483:Keep
472:talk
464:Keep
451:talk
424:talk
403:talk
390:Keep
381:talk
371:and
367:and
348:talk
315:talk
309:. --
285:talk
275:and
261:talk
239:talk
217:and
191:FENS
165:news
128:logs
102:talk
98:edit
52:. —
50:keep
342:six
337:dog
333:red
233:six
228:dog
224:red
205:TWL
140:•
136:– (
493:)
474:)
453:)
426:)
405:)
383:)
350:)
317:)
287:)
263:)
253:.
241:)
221:.
185:)
130:|
126:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
489:(
470:(
449:(
422:(
401:(
379:(
346:(
313:(
283:(
259:(
237:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
134:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.