Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerda and Kai (book)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gerda and Kai (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete Newly published children's book. Given the username, it's quite likely that the article was written by Richard Koscher and there's no indication that the book meets our threshold for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete Yes, I the author posted this, however this IS relevant. It IS based on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen. As a writer, I would check Wikipedia if such books exists before writing. Therefore it's useful information and based on Hans Christian Andersen "The Snow Queen". Since when can't the author post relevant information? I doubt that a stranger wrote the write up for Amy Winehouse's page. (It was her agent approved by her) Here is also an Article about me talking about this book. If you need anything please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy delete. Blatant spamming and conflict of interest. - DonCalo (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't keep an article about a book because the author, who has a fundamental conflict of interest, sees the article as "useful". We require significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which are lacking here.  The short, tragic life of Amy Winehouse was discussed in great detail in countless reliable sources, so there is no comparison between the topics.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete It is fascinating that a hard working person who worked over three year on this film script (beside being a single dad and has a regular job) and than another year for this children's book gets such negative Delete comments. Speedy Delete Seriously? The book is a fact, no? It's available as a hard cover book and on Amazon. A person from Disney even praised it! "My daughter really likes the book. She's even specially requested it a few times.Alec Fredericks, Character TD at Walt Disney Animation Studios" Do you seriously think I would post that on my site and go head to head with Disney if it weren't true? Should I send the book to any of you to verify? It has been in a reliable newssource... SORRY I am no Oprah, who owns her own news sources and just a little guy who's book release is published in a smaller Austrian local newspapers. (And it doesn't speak for you if you don't speak multiple languages as a "fact checker" or whatever you guys are. Not much of an educated person, I would add with one language under your belt) My point about useful is, when I started writing the script 3 years ago, i came here and checked who, what, where this movie/book was last produced. It's helpful to know it exists, no?  What makes my wiki entree different from this one "The Snow Queen (book), a 2008 novel by Mercedes Lackey." I also have an ISBN number and I also have a real book published. And who if not I would need to enter it here? Maybe you can at least turn your negativity into a positive and help me. Because it makes no sense if one book can be shown here and the other one can't . Richard, Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that it can be frustrating but let me point out a few things. First, nobody here is disputing the existence of the book, the genuineness of the comments of that Disney employee or the quality of the book. True, you're not Oprah Winfrey and that puts you at a disadvantage but it doesn't change the fact that neither yourself, your book nor your film project has received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that articles on Wikipedia are based on content attributable to a reliable, published source and this is why an ISBN number is not sufficient to construct an article. The piece in Kleine Zeitung doesn't provide much depth (I am able to read enough German to understand the gist of the article) and no depth whatsoever as far as the book is concerned. As for The Snow Queen (2008 novel), the fact is that at this stage of her career Mercedes Lackey could write a novel consisting of 2000 pages of gibberish and still generate tons of media coverage on which an article can be built. I'm not trying to be negative, I just think your book really fails the test of Notability (books). Pichpich (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it more legit yet? It was in Future US's published Maximum PC magazine as well as in 65 Degrees Magazine And this article in the KLEINE ZEITUNG. How many do I need?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete MORE SOURCESPlease check those articles. Is it more legit yet? It was in Future US's published Maximum PC magazine as well as in 65 Degrees Magazine And this article in the KLEINE ZEITUNG The book is mentioned in the last 1/3 of the article if you don't speak German. How many more do I need?   I just don't understand what makes my Gerda and Kai entry different from the The Snow Queen (book), a 2008 novel by Mercedes Lackey. I don't see any resources or articles on his page! Please advise. I would love to send you the book to review Rkoscher (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Richard Koscher
 * The Maximum PC magazine one is preposterous. It's an article about ebooks in general but it happens to be illustrated using the ebook of Gerda and Kai. So why exactly did the art director of Maximum PC choose this book among all others? Because you happen to be the art director! And as far as I can tell, the 65 Degrees Magazine is a paid advertisement. Pichpich (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to make a point of it being a real book. Pichpich. Who are you? Do you work for Disney? Would be nice if you would make yourself known. I make myself known. Do you work for Wikipedia? At least Cullen is helpful. Have you written a book Pichpich? Has it coverage on Wikipedia? I would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoscher (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE Wikipedia has no editorial board. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff. Although you can contact founder Jimmy Wales, he is not responsible for individual articles or the daily operations. Wikipedia is written, edited, maintained, and almost completely operated by volunteers from around the world.
 * THAT MEANS So basically its ok to be bullied from peeps like pichpich and be deleted. It's his little show of power. He doesn't even reveal who he is! For all I know he could be an employee of Disney or Warner. Who are also attempting a Snow Queen Film. It's a fact that I published the book. Articles, Amazon and Online presence support this. AGAIN. I am happy to send everyone in doubt a copy! As a writer, I would WANT TO KNOW, if something like this exists in order to make an effort to even publish a book like this. This is NOT An Advertising or ARTICLE. It simply states that the book was published and the synopsis. I am NOT trying to upload something that is NOT real or Legit. Rkoscher (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Richard Koscher
 * As I said previously, nobody is disputing the fact that the book exists. Not that it matters but I don't work for Disney or Wikipedia (this is a volunteer project) and none of what I've written has ever been the subject of an article on Wikipedia. You might want to re-read Cullen's comment because we're both telling you the same thing: we wish you and your book all the best but Gerda and Kai does not meet Notability (books) (and even if it did, you shouldn't be writing the article yourself). If you take the time to look at the contributions of Cullen328, DonCalo and myself, you'll probably realize that your Disney/Warner conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. Do you honestly feel that the book meets the notability requirements? Other articles on books with an ISBN are regularly deleted for failing to meet that threshold: Articles for deletion/The Ghosts of Little Rock (ISBN 978-1427635600) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saved By A Poem: Fecha Feliz (ISBN 978-1452890500). Pichpich (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 'FINAL WORDS Guys, do as you please. In closing I want to note that I don't think it's fair. I also think three (3) people shouldn't decide about something I have worked on since 2008. I am a fan of H.C Andersen. I have spend many years as a kid reading his stories. For the upmost respect to him, I extended his story. He never answered WHY the Snow Queen takes the kids for example and many other questions made me want to extend this classic tale. I spend the last 3 years of my life as a single dad to establish and publish a story, that now 3 people decide its NOT noteworthy. Not sure what makes you three so special but apparently I can't make my point and be bullied out. I don't know what else to add. Thanks for your time. Happy deleting. Rkoscher (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Richard Koscher
 * The point is not what is so special about us (there is nothing special), but what is so special about you that you are notable to deserve a Wikipedia entry. I am sorry, but frankly, there is little to nothing. - DonCalo (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rkoscher that nothing unusual or unfair is going on here, except that Rkoscher is taking things personally and claiming unfairness when none exists whatsoever. His book is being held to the same standards as any other book (or any other topic) which has been nominated for deletion. I recommend keeping and deleting roughly the same percentage of articles, and I make each decision individually based on the specific merits and shortcomings of each article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is always difficult when it feels like your hard work is being trashed, but this fails WP:BK. Heywoodg   talk  21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, delete per comments above. Unfortunately the author (of the article and the book) has chosen to take this personally and to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy against both him and the book. The only "conspiracy" is one which sets the article against WP:COI, WP:NB, WP:SPAM and various bits of WP:NOT, particularly WP:SOAP and WP:PLOT. For what it's worth, the Kleine Zeitung reference might go some way to being enough of a third party reference for the author himself (I do read German) but definitely not for the book, whch is pretty much given a passing (and promotional) mention in the article. Tonywalton Talk 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tonywalton here. I've participated in nearly 1000 AfD debates now, and I can assure
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to have WP:COI issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Just to mention one point, Lackey's book is in 832 WorldCat libraries; this book is in zero. It's almost always an argument for deletion when someone compares an unknown work or career with a work or career of a famous person and says, "what's the difference?"   DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (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.