User talk:Glendareynolds

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Glendareynolds


A tag has been placed on User:Glendareynolds, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... The person who contested my page is a writer himself. I understand that writers can be nasty toward other writers just because they think they can and don't want to acknowledge other good works. I have based my page(s) on the same criteria as L.J. Smith and one of her books which are both featured on Wikipedia. My outside links are located where they should be. I have done nothing wrong, at least on my author page for which I received the complaint. If I need to eliminate a few links, than I will comply, but until then, I have as much right to be represented here than anyone else. Based on the G11 rules for unambiguous advertising and promotion, my author page focused only on the author (birthplace, education, inspiration, etc.) and by no means flaunted a literary work. The charge is unfounded. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc.
 * The tagging was done by User:Mean as custard, one of our most reliable promo spotters. I deleted because I agreed that this was not an appropriate use of a user page. I gave you the advise that I give to many self-published authors here - that there is little chance of getting an article until a regular publisher takes the book on. If a self-published book does get the widespread coverage in reliable independent sources, then it will be considered for an article. User pages are for telling people a bit about the user. I say I am a writer and a musician. True. I don't say who I am, and do not mention any of my work. And I never will. Nor do I link to any outside site or blog. If you want to put the article into article space, I will willingly restore it for that purpose, but I would advise you again (my post has been removed by you) that it would not survive very long on grounds of notability. As a userpage, it would be liable to WP:FAKEARTICLE, which is not an implication of inaccurate information but refers more to mistaken use of Wikipedia user space. As to 'sour grapes' or fear of competition, I frequently encourage and advise new or young writers and musicians. In fact, the only things I discourage them from are attempting to get an article here too soon, and self-publishing. The profit margin on self-publishing may appear much higher, but you will soon discover how much a regular publisher does in publicising a book. I do wish you luck - you may be an exception to the normal finding that self-publishing doesn't bring success - and hope that your series may be taken up by a regular publisher. Keep trying them - there's plenty around. Try to get chain bookstores interested. (Small bookshops may take some - but you only need one selling job for a greater number of stores with a chain.) Try to get reviewed by reputable critics. (Always a danger with critics that they mightn't like it...) But please accept that Wikipedia is not here to help you get up the ladder. After you (or hopefully your publisher) has done the hard work, we'll record it. Sorry to be looking on the down side. You may find the Kindle version sells a few more than the PB - that's a new field that may change things because of the low prices. But people still have to find out about things before they can buy them. Once again, good luck. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgot to link to the policy on references - it's WP:RS. Reliable independent sources. Not blogs, own sites, Facebook etc, Amazon, LinkedIn, forums, wikis (yes, even us...), Twitter, Digg, reverbnation (for musicians), and any other profile host or social thing where the subject supplied the info. Without at least one of these refs, no bio will be allowed to stand for longer than the 10 days of the PROD-BLP proposed deletion, and to avoid other deletions more are advised. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)