Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandos Ring


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 00:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chandos Ring

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

This and another article I'll be adding, Greatest Living Poet: Strange Gods, Bulk Prophecies, were deprodded by the author,. They are both works written by one Mark Chandos, whose article I speedily deleted earlier today as an A7. We have here two works published by Xlibris, a self-publishing/print-on-demand printer, neither of which has received any outside coverage that I've been able to find. The articles are very self-aggrandizing, and read as self-promotion to me; had there been a speedy deletion criteria to deal with them earlier, I certainly would have. The author has argued on the talk page of one that it has notability due to sales numbers, but through a self-pub facility, that's questionable at best to me. (A new editor has also weighed in on that talk page.) My view is that neither of these publications has any independent references to assert notability, and both should be deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The following three comments have been moved from Talk:Greatest Living Poet: Strange Gods, Bulk Prophecies. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article shouldn't be deleted because "this book has not only attained comercial success but has also passed the strict critical standards of our executive panel of reviewers." Under this criteria of success the book must exceed at least over a thousand copies sold. In the current poetry market any poetry book that sells over thousand is considered notable. Please refer to the following independent references    Snizhana (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) This is the author of the pages.
 * I want to support this book as a librarian of the University of Wisconsin. We have this book in our catalog, since 2004 and it's frequently asked for by the students for their English courses. Please contact me if you need any further information : . It is logical that this article exists to answer students' questions about the poets' contribution to American literature. Albergo (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article mad dog. This guy is all over the net and if you do a quick myspace or face book you would see that he is listed as a favorite author all over America (start with http://www.myspace.com/flackville06). These people are strangers and not family.  Your approach is biased and uniformed. You are out of touch what is happening in poetry publishing today.  Lets follow the logic of your biased approach.  There is no market for poetry.  Book stores do not sell books by young modern poets.  Yet you slam him for pushing his own books. That is the market now.  That is how it s done by the savvy and serious poets.  No man you cannot delete poets for not selling a million books.  To be judged by the tiny poetry market he is really out there and people want to know who this guy is.  Any modern poet who has sold over 5000 books to strangers... has made it. Few publishing houses actually publish poets today, most are small press poets with editions of 3-400 and if you were on top of your game you would know this.  This is not garage car band, or wacko cult, he is a serious poet that has been selling books for 8 years.  Have you seen how much he has been blogged all over the net. And if you think this is the author himself you can call me --Jackotack (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Have we seen blogging around the net? Well... no, that's the problem. There are virtually no reliable sources to be found about this author or his works. I found a couple of blog posts but no actual independent, reliable references. The works still fail our notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete both - I don't see an coverage in reliable sources for either. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both - I can't find, neither in the references given in the articles nor googling around, anything similar to a reliable source testifying to these books' notability. And I am bolstered in this opinion by the fact that apparently the best sources the supporters of this article can find are MySpace and Facebook pages, and alleged "independent references" which actually are a page of the (self) publisher and what seems the official webpage of one of these books, with the publisher's logo (one of the main self-praises appearing in this page, in turn, is that the book is "Advertised each month in the New York Book of Review"). Goochelaar  (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding to myself, with sentences like "Greatest Living Poet atempts to change all poetic trands of the past four generations of English literature." [sic], I wouldn't be above considering these articles for speedy deletion under "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Goochelaar  (talk) 18:04, 24 August 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.