Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chancery Stone


 * 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 per subject's request, and failure to produce reliable sources to back up the assertions in this article. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Chancery_Stone
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject is not notable (a self-published author with no other credits), text is written by subject, and references are unsubstantiated (see the discussion page)

I am Chancery Stone and I think you should take down this page. It is annoyingly flat and dull; had I written it it would have been much more interesting and colourful, but I appreciate that's not particularly valid as a reson for deletion. Therefore I want to point out that The DANNY Quadrilogy is the only novel I have ever written and only two volumes are in print (although honesty forces me to admit another two volumes are due out this year, and I have written a non-fiction book on writing, but I think we can safely discount those too). The DANNY Quadrilogy has no sizeable fan following to speak of, therefore it cannot be notable in any way. No-one famous has ever read it. If no-one famous is talking about it, and it hasn't been acknowledged by anyone famous, then why should it be included on here? Wikipedia is a fan-compiled website. If my book has no fans then there is no reason to include it on here. Contrariwise, there are several 'fans' (of other things assumably) pointing out, quite rightly, that my work has no place on here. I agree with them. I would go one further and ask that should the book ever become famous, or be mentioned by anyone famous, that you please not include it on this site. I think it's better to be consistent. If a book's not worth anything before it gets famous why should it be worth anything after? Looking forward to losing my 'entry'. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.156.9 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete subjects snarky comments aside, no indication of how this person might meet WP:BIO, self published works rarely get 3rd party coverage. RadioFan (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RadioFan, as far as "reliable secondary sources" goes my work has only been mentioned in passing by The Times Literary Supplement and more fully on Grampian TV. That one was (much) longer admittedly, but Grampian is only watched by the Scots, and they have only produced a handful of famous people, none of whom count for much (like Lorraine Kelly), or are dead (like Robert Louis Stevenson). Other reviews and write-ups have all been on internet sites, and they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I have been mentioned relatively recently, in 2009, in several Really Big Newspapers (oh - and The Bookseller) along with Max Scratchmann when the scandal blew up over his book, Chucking It All, but that was only because we are published by the same publisher. So that's really because I know someone notable rather than I AM notable. You really do need to delete.

P.S. Forgot to mention last time, my 2 fan sites only have about three members each. I think that clinches it really. --81.155.156.9 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Chancery Stone


 * Delete Still no reliable independent sources on TLS mention other than the puff by author's publicist/publisher, who is creator of the page in the first place. Nor does Chancery Stone provide any further supporting evidence despite her claims of being recently mentioned in 'Really Big Newspapers'. Page is a blatant piece of self-promotion, subject entirely non-notable. Be best (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The entry which we placed on Chancery Stone is in no way "a blatant piece of self-promotion".  It adheres strictly to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic guidelines and Chancery's work satisfies notability.   Chancery Stone's work has been reviewed in various newspapers and magazines and was, indeed, discussed in the TLS - see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tlskeywordsearch.tls?queryKeywords=chancery+stone&x=0&y=0 - Also the launch of Chancery's first novel was covered on Grampian TV (now STV North) - see our site to replay the broadcast: http://www.poisonpixiefilms.co.uk/danny_movies_launch_large.htm  As for "Nor does Chancery Stone provide any further supporting evidence despite her claims of being recently mentioned in 'Really Big Newspapers'" please see The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/shelved-the-book-that-outraged-the-orkneys-1712238.html  and The Daily Express - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/128689   Our book, Chucking It All, was also featured in The Sunday Express, The Bookseller, The Press & Journal and the Scottish Review of Books (where Chancery was also mentioned but there is not an on-line source for that.)  I am at a loss to understand how being discussed in The Independent, TLS, The Express and The Bookseller, plus being covered on TV, fails to meet the criteria for "reliable secondary sources".  Poisonpixie (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Poison Pixie PublishingPoisonpixie (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "discussed in the TLS" - The only ref to Stone from that link leads to a subscriber only page. However, from the talk page on the original article, someone who has seen the item states - "The book was mentioned as part of an article on "The New Disgustingness" in 2005, but it was not reviewed and was only briefly described, with no particular opinion given. I can find no information from reputable sources about sales or reviews in print." Mere mention in newspapers, or being reviewed, is not an indication of notability. Furthermore, you, as promoter/partner/publisher of Stone's work, are demonstrating a clear [|conflict of interest] - "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Be best (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Suddenly Chancery Stone's lack of "reliable secondary sources" has changed and become "mere" reviews and newspaper features.  Now that we have provided the required "reliable secondary sources" the goal posts have been moved yet again.  What would be an indication of "notability" if being discussed in the TLS, national newspapers and national TV do not qualify?  Perhaps 'Be best' now requires a royal decree or an affidavit from the Pope.  As a final thought, we find it strange that the statements in Chancery Stone's "discussion" page are taken as gospel and no "reliable secondary sources" are ever required from these 'contributors' for their assertions.  Perhaps 'Be best' has a conflict of interest which she is not declaring - such as a personal mission to remove Chancery Stone from this site and that she is more concerned with "advancing [her] outside interests" rather "than advancing the aims of Wikipedia."  Poisonpixie (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Delete? Just let it go already! I have tried to delete my 'entry' from Wikipedia only to find it immediately reinstated. Why? The 'entry' is up for deletion. I do not have notability. This has already been well established through extensive hearsay. The national media bona fides offered by the Poison Pixie publicist will never compete with unsigned opinions (I warned him). Why, oh why, then is the 'entry' still here? Why reinstate something no-one wants – especially me? This insanity smacks of power-play. Surely such an upstanding online resource as Wikipedia is not indulging in acts of ego? Please remove the entry. I've asked you nicely; I don't know what else I can do. You won't hear from me again. Chancery Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.156.9 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (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.