Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiridia

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiridia[edit]

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

Of only 2,000 Google results, I could find no independant coverage on this; most of the results were created by the creator of the subject. Ipatrol (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You've found more than I did. "El Castillo de Hater" "gomez" produces one ghit - here on WP. "Hiridia" "gomez" produces 49. I would have thought I'd have found the site where one can read the story online. As it stands, it is self-published, wherever it is, and doesn't count for notability. Ah, wait - "Hiridia" "Miguel Angel Centeno" gives 5 ghits, two being en- and es- WP. Another is a forum. Another reFers to a 'upcoming book'. WP:CRYSTAL. "El Castillo de Hater" "Miguel Angel Centeno" gives 0 ghits. http://www.caballerosdeeuropa.net/literatura-f54/hiridia-el-castillo-de-hater-t3002.htm#81475 is posted in a forum by Revan Shan, which is the user name of the creator of the article (both here and es- and both created 14th Feb). In fact, all three references are self-published. (Sorry if this is messy - I was researching something for elsewhere and eating my tea while posting this.) Peridon (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Castillo de Hater wasn't published yesterday, but I corrected a spelling mistake. Take a look at the other guys' posts date. And about google entries... What can I say, that you can't find much about it doesn't mean it isn't true. If you want another verification about the relation between name and subject you can take a look at the description on the Hiridia Total War Trailer, I think my name is included there... You can find it typing 'hiridia' on youtube, or directly on google, it's one of the first results.

About the crystal ball. I understand it, but I never said in wikipedia there will be a book, just that I'm working on one, which is totally true. There was crystalball syndrome on that forum you entered but the text I wrote here is neat and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevanShan (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Things may well be true, but not notable (referring to Wikipedia's use of the term). I'm afraid that self-published things are counted as non-notable (with the possible exception of something published by someone very notable, like certain anonymously published tracts in the 1700s that were actually by someone very notable). The book is not yet available from a publisher - that's not a claim to notability under the Crystal Ball rules. All your references are self-published, blogs, forums or otherwise non-independent. You need independent coverage from non-editable sources, not to establish existence (though I didn't find the online reading site) but to establish that there is something of note. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not free web space or a directory. We don't record the about-to-be, or the I-think-this-is-good-but-no-one-else-knows-about-it. As was pointed out the other day in another discussion, even The Origin of Species might not have got an article straight away. It wouldn't have been missing for long, given the uproar that followed publication... Yes, there are other things here that do not merit their places. Things slip through. We usually catch up with them. Peridon (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non editable sources... lol Everything on the internet is editable. From that statement, well... I could only post anything in here if it's printed. Once again I would like to remember that there was no 'about to be', it's all true info. But let me tell you another thing too.

Some people come to me and tell me how great is all what I've made. That all that stuff about Hiridia appears on the internet, and even on images and video. But I want them to have some place were they can actually have some clear and resumed info, out of any sort of forum or even official webpage. It would be awesome if people could find about this with only taking a look at wikipedia. I'm sure they've already searched here, and that they wouldn't be that surprised if they saw an entry with the title of Hiridia-Wikipedia in the Google search results. RevanShan (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By non-editable is meant no blogs, no forums, no aboutus or LinkedIn. Yes, there are mentions of Hiridia on the Internet. Not all that many that I've seen - but none of those fit our requirements. We get a lot of people wanting pages here. Some are pure vanity - and some of those get kept when the other side of the picture gets added (and the original creator is doing his best to get it deleted!). Some are pure advertising - some just plugging an existing product, and others trying to promote something new. Neither of those are suitable. Many are trying to gain respectability and/or notability by having a page. If they can establish notability - on our terms and definitions - OK. If not, they can come back when they can. By the way, thank you for remaining calm. A lot of people start raving and telling us how the system should work rather than taking our advice. It doesn't do them any good. We've heard it before.

In the gap between non-notability and notability, there's always aboutus and LinkedIn. They're free, so far as I know, but as they contain rather subjective material, they're no good as references here. They will get your message to the fans and the curious. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this is technically not a book, I think Wikipedia:Notability (books) applies. The subject of this article does not meet our guidelines. Wine Guy~Talk 10:38, 22 February 2010 (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.