User talk:Andy Yuhas

Who's Paying/Square Cow
Notability on Wikipedia is not defined as having anything to do with subjective interpretations or personal opinions of whether the topic "deserves" our attention or not — it's entirely a factor of being able to demonstrate that the topic has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Neither a book nor a writer is automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist — it's the coverage itself, not anybody's personal opinion about whether it "deserves" coverage or not, that determines whether a topic qualifies for an article on here or not. It's entirely possible to believe that a topic is "deserving" of more media coverage than it's actually received, or that it's "undeserving" of the volume of media coverage that it has garnered — but qualifying for an article on here is not a question of personal opinions about what the topic "deserves", but of the quality of sourcing that you can provide to support the article.

The articles in question were written and structured as advertisements for the book and its creators, not as neutral encyclopedia articles, and cited no references at all to demonstrate that they qualify for articles under our inclusion rules. That doesn't mean they can never have articles, I assure you — but they're not entitled to keep those particular versions of articles about them. The difference between a keepable article and a deletable one is a question of reliable source coverage in media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) which demonstrates that the book passes one or more of the criteria at WP:NBOOK, and the author(s) pass one or more of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. The mere fact that a book has an ISBN number isn't enough to get it into Wikipedia — to get an article about a book kept on here, you need to provide properly sourced evidence that media outlets independent of the subject have chosen to give media coverage to the book.

You absolutely have the right to try again, but what you would need to do if you want a new version to be kept is to actually cite actual reliable source coverage. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)