218:. She runs the popular 10-year-old website dragonsinn, which is first on google searches for Dragon Poetry. Also, author JF Jenkins has also expressed interest in the series via Twitter, if it is required I will post the link to that tweet. The books currently has 29 facebook followers. If I have to, I will post the lnik for that page. Another thing, the ebooks don't have a google entry yet because they are on Smashwords.
273:. There aren't any reliable sources to show that this self-published series passes notability guidelines. It might be notable at some point in time, but right now it isn't. Most self-published works will never pass notability guidelines no matter how good they are because they won't have enough reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. It might not always seem fair, but those are the guidelines.
314:: The series or the article? In either case it doesn't matter how well written the article is or how good the book series is, you still have to provide reliable sources to prove that it passes notability guidelines. Trust me, I know several amazing authors who will probably never make it onto Knowledge because they don't pass notabiilty guidelines at this time and probably never will.
269:. Unless the authors posted reviews to places other than Goodreads, you can't really count those. Goodreads is considered to be along the lines of IMDb as far as sources go, ie, a trivial source. I did a search for the book and was unable to find anything that would show that this book series passes
243:
part is found wanting: if you feel you have to explain why Scott is popular, that the same as asserting that she's not. Indeed
Knowledge doesn't have an article on her yet, and the link you provided is something she posted herself. Fails on all counts.
355:
Indeed I don't think it matters whether the article is well-written. When the subject doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, even a masterpiece of writing won't survive the deletion process. But in some cases that merely means that
166:
227:
Facebook followers? If you ask me, if you're going to assert the notability of something based on the number of
Facebook followers, any number below 10,000 is a strong assertion that the topic
426:
160:
127:
404:
52:. No evidence of meeting notability guidelines was produced during the discussion. I am happy to provide a copy for someone to work on in their user space if desired.
197:
Series of ebooks with no evidence of notability. The creator claims it was reviewed by "a popular author" who turns out to be no so popular after all.
100:
95:
104:
293:
Can all of you (or the two of you) at least do me a favor before you go about deleting it: can you read it through it and see if it's well written?
87:
215:
the author, Jess C Scott, has been added as the popular author that reviewed the book. If you want her bio on why she is popular, here it is
382:
I know the editing has nothing to do with an author's notability, I just want to know if it's easy to read and sounds "encyclopedic."
181:
148:
17:
392:
298:
231:
meet our inclusion guidelines. Fortunately, we don't base notability on
Facebook popularity, we base it on the number of
62:
142:
460:
440:
418:
396:
371:
349:
323:
302:
282:
251:
207:
69:
138:
479:
40:
91:
388:
294:
188:
83:
75:
266:
475:
345:
319:
278:
36:
174:
154:
361:
436:
414:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
474:
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
341:
333:
315:
274:
58:
270:
456:
432:
410:
337:
232:
121:
53:
265:. It doesn't matter how many seemingly notable authors have reviewed the book,
452:
216:
468:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
235:
that exist on the topic. You've supplied one that does meet the
332:: You might want to look into seeing if you can userfy (
117:
113:
109:
173:
427:
list of
Science fiction-related deletion discussions
336:) this until you can provide reliable sources per
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
482:). No further edits should be made to this page.
405:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
360:is not the right time to start an article. See
187:
8:
451:: Non-notable series by non-notable author.
425:Note: This debate has been included in the
403:Note: This debate has been included in the
424:
402:
340:. I have no problem with you doing that.
7:
24:
233:reliable third-party references
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
70:17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
461:21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
441:19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
419:19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
397:00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
372:16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
350:06:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
324:06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
303:06:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
283:05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
252:05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
208:03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
267:notability is not inherited
499:
239:requirement although the
471:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
84:The Society On Da Run
76:The Society On Da Run
389:Sir aaron sama girl
295:Sir aaron sama girl
48:The result was
443:
430:
421:
408:
67:
65:So let it be done
60:
490:
473:
431:
409:
369:
249:
205:
192:
191:
177:
125:
107:
63:
59:
34:
498:
497:
493:
492:
491:
489:
488:
487:
486:
480:deletion review
469:
365:
245:
201:
134:
98:
82:
79:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
496:
494:
485:
484:
464:
463:
445:
444:
422:
386:
385:
384:
383:
377:
376:
375:
374:
353:
327:
306:
305:
289:
287:
286:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
195:
194:
131:
78:
73:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
495:
483:
481:
477:
472:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
428:
423:
420:
416:
412:
406:
401:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
381:
380:
379:
378:
373:
368:
363:
359:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
260:
253:
248:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
470:
467:
448:
387:
366:
357:
329:
311:
288:
262:
246:
240:
236:
228:
224:
219:
202:
198:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
362:WP:OVERCOME
352:tokyogirl79
342:Tokyogirl79
326:tokyogirl79
316:Tokyogirl79
285:tokyogirl79
275:Tokyogirl79
241:reliability
237:third-party
161:free images
367:Blanchardb
330:Additional
247:Blanchardb
203:Blanchardb
476:talk page
433:• Gene93k
411:• Gene93k
370:-- timed
358:right now
334:WP:USERFY
250:-- timed
206:-- timed
37:talk page
478:or in a
271:WP:NBOOK
229:does not
128:View log
39:or in a
312:Comment
199:Delete.
167:WP refs
155:scholar
101:protect
96:history
449:Delete
263:Delete
139:Google
105:delete
55:Xymmax
50:delete
338:WP:RS
182:JSTOR
143:books
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
457:talk
453:SL93
437:talk
415:talk
393:talk
364:. --
346:talk
320:talk
299:talk
279:talk
220:Keep
175:FENS
149:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
189:TWL
126:– (
459:)
439:)
429:.
417:)
407:.
395:)
348:)
322:)
301:)
281:)
244:--
225:29
169:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
455:(
435:(
413:(
391:(
344:(
318:(
297:(
277:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.