Talk:Töfrahöllin

Reinstating this article
This article was deleted and replaced with a redirect to the entry for the author by Justlettersandnumbers. After some discussion, I'm reinstating it, so I'm just explaining why.

Justlettersandnumbers and I discussed their deletion of this article on their talk page (at the time of writing here). I pointed out that the article met notability criteria and Justlettersandnumbers did not disagree, and recognised that their objections to the article were inconsistent with local consensus.

There was also an earlier problem here that an editor deleted a couple of sentences which cited academic research which I have published, in the mistaken belief that citing yourself is unacceptable on Wikipedia. This was discussed on my talk page here and here if anyone is concerned and would like to check those discussions. (There was a weird quirk with the WISIWYG editor interface which did leave parts of the reference to my article in bold italics, but I sorted that out for this entry by retyping it.)

So I don't think there should be a problem reinstating this article. Still, I've increased the analytical content a bit, with references. Alarichall (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You have reverted my edit with the comment 'Rv to redirect: see page history; not notable and seemingly added primarily to plug an article by the editor who added it'. I have, however, addressed these issues above. I am therefore going to reinstate this article again and I would be grateful if you would not interfere with it further without showing on the talk page how your actions are:
 * Consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Based on evidence.


 * Just to be helpful, I will explain again why there is nothing wrong with this article.


 * You say the subject is 'not notable', but it objectively meets the critera for Notability_(books): 'A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.' As this page clearly showed at the time of its deletions, the book meets this criterion.


 * Regarding other objections in the page history, Justlettersandnumbers objected to the summary of the book having no references. But as the manual of style says, 'The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary'. Justlettersandnumbers has (as mentioned above) recognised that their dislike of this is inconsistent with local concensus.


 * Regarding your statement 'seemingly added primarily to plug an article by the editor who added it': I could give reasons why this is unlikely, but I won't, because it's not our business to determine the intentions of editors. As you know, the question is simply whether the reference meets SELFCITE citeria: that it 'is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work.' You and I have already discussed with an independent user whether the citation meets these criteria here and here and I can't see any doubt that it does.


 * As you know, I've never claimed that this is an amazing article. I'll also take the opportunity of this edit to improve the referencing for the reviews. But it's a perfectly good stub and I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting legitimate work. Alarichall (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)