User talk:Constant Reader

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rklawton 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The MonsterGrrls
I've nominated this article for deletion. It reads like an ad; and the book is self-published by the author. This does not lend much credibility to the book. If you click on the article link and read the directions, you will learn how to participate in the discussion regarding the article's possible deletion. Perhaps the article/book is more notable than it first appears. I've certainly been known to make mistakes. At any rate, I hope this process does not discourage you from becoming a regular editor here at Wikipedia. Rklawton 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all sure that it isn't notable. In general, we frown on using self-published works as the basis for an article.  Anyone can self publish, therefore we could (in theory) have an article about anything - no matter how pointless.  And we really don't want that.  On the other hand, we also can't say that all self-published work - especially in the area of fiction (as opposed to astrophysics) is crap.  Shakespeare (presumably) produced his own plays, and that didn't mean they were terrible.  It would be funny if, a hundred years from now, my claim to fame was for shooting down the Mark Twain of the 21st century.  Examples of work we do not allow would include unpublished dissertations, essays, or research.  The bottom line, though, is that fiction books seem to be a logical exception to the general policy of disallowing articles about self-published work.


 * Now to answer your question more directly. If you added information in this article regarding media coverage, awards, sales figures, book reviews, and Google references, then we (the other Wikipedia editors) would have a much clearer understanding of this book's merits.  What we (as editors) can not do is read the book for ourselves and decide whether or not we like it.  That, too, would count as "original research."  I hope this helps, but if it doesn't please don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else.  We try to be a friendly and encouraging bunch - especially when folks like you are here making good faith efforts to publish something worthwhile.  Rklawton 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

MonsterGrrls article suggestions
Since you asked for advice on the MonsterGrrls AfD about improving the article, here are a few suggestions...
 * Adding the part about the Books 'N Blues Festival was a good idea. Though probably not enough to save the article on its own, it did show that the book has been in the public eye at least to some degree, and isn't an internet-only thing.
 * Try to get the book on Amazon or some of the other major distributors. They do take small-press and self-published works, and having a decent Amazon sales rank goes a long way toward keeping a book article.
 * Don't play dead. The last entry on the MonsterGrrls blog was October, a whopping 9 months ago.  Unfortunately, this gives the impression that MonsterGrrls is more or less a dead project, whether it really is or not.  Anything, even "I'm working on book 2, check back later" would be better than stony silence.
 * Above all, remember that article deletion is nothing personal against you or your work. Nor is it necessarily permanent--if your article is deleted but becomes more encyclopedic later on, and I think it will, it can be re-added.
 * That's it for a start, but feel free to contact me on my talk page if you'd like to discuss it further. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)