Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANIMA: a novel about Second Life


 * 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. Consensus is clear that this book doesn't deserve its own article. Given that the claim to significance in the Dalian Hansen article is that he is the author of this book, that article should probably be deleted too, but that decision will have to be made elsewhere. Flowerparty ☀ 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ANIMA: a novel about Second Life

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book from vanity publisher; not reviewed in any mainstream sources, fails WP:BK. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your Revenge For Hurt Feelings? So I undid one of your corrections, basically putting back a registered trademark symbol. As a result, you now put the entire article up for deletion. On what grounds? A publisher that has an inventory of other printed books but not enough to fit your standards so is demoted to vanity status? Outside news articles and the unique nature of the story are not enough because it did not become a best seller and remains a hot blog topic? Using popular opinion to justify a revenge tactic is really sad. If the article does not conform to Wikipedia standards then delete it and have your way. A discussion? As if people are already clamoring about the subject there needs to be a debate so you can contrive a legal stand to support your actions? I do not understand on what grounds you would single out this book, and not countless others listed on Wikipedia - all of which follow Wikipedia standards. And if the article was such a violation, why did you bother to make a minor correction to begin with? I personally do not care about the trademark symbol which was reverted, but I have seen it used. Clearly, the standards of consistency are not uniform. So if I offended you in any way I sincerely apologies and yield. As for the discussion on the article, it is not spam, it has been approved by past Wikipedia editors, and it does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines or First Amendment Rights. My vote is it should stay and the matter be promptly dropped. User:Kazkura (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Redirect to the article on the author, Dalian Hansen. It is possible for a self-published novel to become notable, though it very rarely happens. This one has not yet been reviewed by any newspaper, nor can I find much notice in the blogosphere except for an excerpt. It has just been published this week, so  this article seem to be intended as  promotion of the book. If it ever does get significant reviews in published sources, then try to again--in user space.   DGG (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What was published this week? It looks to me that both the book and that blog post are from 2007.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oops--and itf there is nothing more than that in 2 years, certainly not notable.


 * Update Just for the record, the article you noted was from 2007, not 2009. So clearly, there is not a lot of promotional value to this entry for such an old title. Other media sources were also listed in the entry, however, some of those organizations may have gone out of business. I would note that when a traditional newspaper goes out of business, it does not invalidate any of the news it reported. Likewise, many pre-dot.com companies still have entries in Wikipedia even though they no longer have web sites. Is a book is only considered valid if there is a newspaper review. This service can be just as easily purchased and assumes that reviews are only ever made online and never in such archaic forms as newsprint or magazines/digests. Libraries and Universities that use this book do not all post their resources to google, so using a keyword search as the end all be all of validity is not a fair standard. User:Kazkura (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Redirect and merge into Dalian Hansen. Pretty simple, it's a self-published NN novel, fails WP:BK...--Junius49 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Self-published NN novel, fails WP:BK The entire contents of the article was written and posted by the book's author. Although the book is credited as being authored by a "Dalian Hansen", there is no such person. The author of this book has created a false entry for "Dalian Hansen" here on Wikipedia in addition to his 'book' entry. "Dalian Hansen" is not the author, and is not the author's pseudonym. Instead, "Dalian Hansen" is the name of a character in the online interactive game called Second Life. The supposed 'picture' of "Dalian Hansen" on 'his' Wikipedia page is not a picture of a living being but rather it is a computer generated drawing. Another pose of that computer generated drawing can be found on the right side of the picture here. Not only should the book's entry be deleted but also the "Dalian Hansen" page should be deleted. Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Update Joe, are you blind or do you just select what facts you care to read? The whole deal about Dalian Hansen is he is a virtual character who wrote a book in a virtual environment (and we can have a debate about the financial status of the publisher if you wish to attack the validity of the book). Where do you justify saying he is not the author, or the pseudonym of the author? How is this fake? So every entry in Wikipedia has to be about a living person that can be googled to your satisfaction? There is an Anshe Chung and Aimee Weber, who are both simulated / virtual people who have extensive Wikipedia entries. Are these false entries too? These brand identities, even though virtual, are somehow a public fraud? I guess the trademark Aimee has for her avatar is a big lie too? Did you see the trademark papers or google them on the web to know for sure? Delete this entry as you please, but you are not a god of all knowledge and wisdom. If I seem rude, its because I don't like people calling me a liar. User:Kazkura (talk)


 * Delete - or merge to Second Life's own virtual Virtupedia - not that I think one exists - but seems to me if its only relevant in virtual world, it would be appropriate in a virtual encyclopedia, not this one. And — is encyclopedia a publicity platform for aspiring novelists?? While fascinating show of role-playing on part of the (virtual) author, not WP:BK. Casimirpo (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.