Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verse the World

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. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verse the World[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy for spam as I don't think it fits properly. I am concerned about the notability so I've brought it here. Peridon (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of the book says on the talk page that he wrote the article "to support the book, NOT to advertise for it" but I don't really see the distinction --Theodolite ➹ 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from article talk page: Hi,

I created the Verse the World page by request from the readers of the book. My name is Manu (Singh) and I wrote the Wikipedia page to support the book, NOT to advertise for it. This book is a legitimate story written about a friend of mine that suffered a tragic death and this book is the story behind it. It is written as a multimedia e-book. The website, as you can see, has several reviews, including a professor, author, and a doctor, that have read the book and written reviews about it. Additionally, there is a Facebook fan group for the book with over 140 readers, with that number growing.

The website for the book is www.versetheworld.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AXmichigan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be interviewed by a local newspaper (patch.com) in the next couple weeks and in addition to the readers, a friend of mine who works for the newspaper asked me to create and initial Wikipedia page for the book and myself.

Please do not delete this Wikipedia, and let me know, if anything, is in violation of Wikipedia's policy and I will be happy to rewrite it.

Thank you, Manu

In addition, the book has been copyrighted since October 4th, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AXmichigan (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's Manu again. I'm not trying to do anything malicious, so I don't get it. I spent over 3 years working on a book that I have released for free. It took a lot of time to write, edit, and add allthe multimedia effects. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to explain the background of how something was brought into fruition and that is all I was trying to do. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong here. AXmichigan (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on your talk page. Theodolite ➹ 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it backs up what I say below. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, we're not accusing you of doing anything malicious. Second, please sign posts with four squiggly things ~~~~ like those. Third, Wikipedia is free - yes. But it's an encyclopaedia that cannot include everything. An obvious no-hoper would be "What I did on my Holidays", by Jason Smith (age 8). (With the exception of it getting issued in hardback by Doubleday and selling 50,000 copies...) An obvious must-be-in is "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Brontë. In between is a vast expanse of varying notability. Have a look at WP:GNG for general notability, and WP:RS for what are reliable sources. So far, you only cite your own site. You may know more about this work than anyone else (until the experts and critics really get going...), but this is not a reliable source - according to Wikipedia's standards. We're not accusing YOU of dishonesty. We have seen a lot who are. The article was tagged for speedy deletion as spam (but with a posh way of wording it that's built into the template). I declined the speedy as it didn't look wholly promotional which is the real target of that tag, and opened this discussion. It's not a trial. It's a review procedure. It's normally open for seven days, and an administrator will read through it and make a decision. (Won't be me - I'm involved. It's one who hasn't taken part.) You should find us all willing to help and explain. And if the discussion goes against you, we can advise on how to try again with a new improved version. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peridon, thank you for the response--I just posted on Theodolite's wall. This Wikipedia article was created as a precursor to give background before having the local newspaper article, as well as the future news articles written about the book. I'm not sure if it was a requirement for them to write the article, but it is what they asked for so I immediately wrote it to maximize my chances. As I'm trying my best to spread this book as far as I can, please let me know how I can improve the article and what I need to do to remove this article for deletion consideration. I appreciate your help. AXmichigan (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there! "As I'm trying my best to spread this book as far as I can" - I'd advise you to look at WP:SPAM before you say any more. That isn't what we're here for. Promotional stuff isn't allowed, not even for non-profit, free or charitable. It's all one here. See WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) as well (your wording isn't too bad in this respect from my point of view, but it gives a bit more background to what is expected here - and what is not allowed. I'll be back on tomorrow evening (my time here in the UK) as I'm going off now (early start in the morning...). Do some reading while I'm gone, and put any questions to the next shift. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not meant to spread the book, it was meant to only give background information (I personally am trying to spread my friends' plight). Once again I'm not trying to advertise anything. At this point I give up, just delete the article if you wish. Thank you for making me give up hope. AXmichigan (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, should have been speedy delete. --George100 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it sounds like what the author needs is to obtain a press-release service (there are free ones) to promote his writing. --George100 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have quite a conversation here, primarily centered on semantics. There is often a wide range of ideas and fields of understanding on Wikipedia, over the definition of publicity, support, promotion, spam, and advertising. Another way to understand the inclusion criteria or recognize an inappropriate promotional article (G11) is to determine if the article has been written or edited in an attempt to manage the public's perception of the subject of the article, or to initiate or enhance the anticipation of an event. In this particular instance, the anticipation of a promotional article in a local newspaper. On Wikipedia, common article subjects that are often written to promote, include persons or groups (for example, political candidates and performing artists), goods and services, organizations and events of all kinds, and works of art or entertainment. Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject prior to notability would be considered inappropriate. The desire of the author is to use Wikipedia as an impetus or catalyst to bring the newspaper article to fruition. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The response in this situation would be to address the promotional article, content, and materials through the speedy deletion process. Specifically, to ensure compliance with the G11 guidelines. That said, we're all human here, with varying degrees of interpretation and understanding, i.e., semantics. Arriving at the discussion phase of the deletion process, the article has not presented importance or significance, nor established the notability of the subject. Notability must be established and presented through significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary and third-party sources before inclusion on Wikipedia can be accepted. In response to this lack, Wikipedia's guidelines call for deletion of the Verse the World article. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a difference between someone who makes an article purely to promote a book, and someone who makes an article so that it can contain background information about a book, that will support his PR? Maybe, but it doesn't matter because the essential point is that the book is not currently notable. The purpose of the article is, therefore, irrelevent. Also, while AXmichigan asks for advice on how to improve the article, they need to be aware that in many cases 'improving' the article isn't going to help. In the absence of good quality reliable sources, an article is unlikely to ever pass AfD, and there is nothing much you can do about that, unfortunately.--Korruski^Talk 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When there is coverage in independent sources, you would be welcome to try again - but keep it on a subpage of your userpage first and ask one or more of us for advice. If the reviews you refer to above are to be found outside your site, but not in a blog or forum, or Facebook, MySpace etc, then tell us. If they are written for your site, they don't count as independent. Sorry, that's how it is. Go for the press - get your project covered there. They are NEWSpapers - they look at what is new. Happenings and reviews of new things. We record things as they achieve note. Use all the free space providers like LinkedIn and AboutUs (if you aren't already...). But, as with many people, I fear you mistook the purpose of Wikipedia. We aren't against you - I'm sure all the participants here would join me in wishing you luck and success in an interesting project. But I feel that's all we can do here. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (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.