Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Weed: One Girl's Story of the Holocaust


 * 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 of the nomination was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Weed: One Girl's Story of the Holocaust
Non-notable self published book by a non-notable author. My vote would be Delete accompanied with best wishes for the future. Dipics 19:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - and best wishes to the author for her future success. Rklawton 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'd also like to join Rklawton in hoping that the book's author doesn't let this discourage her from writing more. Tevildo 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I say we don't delete it, she's 14. The book is being sold on Amazon. -- Tikallover 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)contribs) 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. That, unfortunately, doesn't convey notability by itself.  Daisy Ashford was nine when she wrote her book; when, and only when, Stephanie achieves that level of publishing success, we'll welcome an article about her and her books.  Until then, we can offer her our encouragement, but not a waiver of WP:BIO. Tevildo 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, suspected vanity page. On another note, if the author continues to write, in order to lend more authenticity to her stories, she should avoid giving Polish characters names like "Elaine Bowers". --Thorsten1 20:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Elaine wasn't Polish. She was a Jew living in Poland. Her parents and her friends have Jewish names (Dinah, Benjamin, Ruth). I'm guessing from the book that they just decided to name their daughter "Elaine". Plus, I saw a note in the front of the book saying why the author had done that. Tikallover 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete self-published book. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Look at the article creator's talk page.  I think this AfD needs to be handled very delicately. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Self/vanity published works need a lot of evidence of significant sales and attention to be regarded as notable. This one fails. Fan1967 22:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability says, "not all notable subjects are famous or important." And according to Jimbo, encyclopedic content "is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion".  He also says this about Qubit Field Theory, "I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." 71.118.84.86 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability also has a link to some proposed standards for notability for books at WP:BK. It gives a good list of 10 notability criteria.  This book doesn't come close to meeting any of them.  I have no data on sales but would honestly be suprised if the sales for this book have reached three figures.  Just because something is verifiable and can be presented in a NPOV fashion does NOT mean it is encyclopedic.  For example, I have a dandelion in my yard.  This can be verified, it can also be presented in an NPOV fashion.  But encyclopedic?  Of course not.  Notability is the key.  The dandelion is not. And, nor is the book per WP:BK.Dipics 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What if we merge all three of the articles into one article titled "Books written by Stephanie Apruzese"? The guide to deletion says "Books are notable if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not" --Tikallover 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The author is not notable either. The standard for notability for an author per WP:BIO is:


 * Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

The author in question currently has one book that is self published and one other (the one in this article) that is not published at all. I have no sales figures but would be suprised if the one book that has been published has sold more than 20 copies to people outside the family/friends of the author. Writing a non-notable book does not make an author notable. In this case, neither the author NOR the book(s) in question are notable. I strongly suspect that the author of the books is the person who wrote the wikipedia articles also. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. Once this, or any other book by this author (or even all the books added together) meets ANY of the criteria for notability under WP:BK I will happily vote to include them here. Until that happens, and it's not even close, then I will continue to wish Stephanie well but will also continue to vote as noted above. Dipics 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete Let's cut to the chase here.  The author of these articles, Tikallover is also the author of the books in question and is, in fact Stephanie Apruzese.  This can be found from the authors page at http://tikallover.deviantart.com/journal/ . This article and the others about this authors books, published or not should be deleted not only as painfully obviously non-notable but also as flat out gross vanity.  I'll cut and paste this to the other pages in question since we can't merge the deletions per Thorsten1's wonderful suggestion.  Beaner1 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I wish I could say something here. Thank you all. You've succeeded in making me feel like absoulute crap, which is exactly what everyone else in my real life does. I'm so depressed I could just die, have been that way since I was three, and now I feel much much worse! Thanks a whole lot! *bows and curtsies as she exits*. --Tikallover 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though you may have won this time, you all haven't seen the last of me! Oh no! Someday I'll become a great writer, just you wait and see! And when that happens, just try and delete the articles, just try! I've had alot of experiance with writing already, and someday, someday... JUST YOU WAIT! *insert evil laughter* --Tikallover 21:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I felt quite a bit of sympathy for Stephanie — more than she'll ever know, owing not only to my own situation, but to a coincidence of names. I did, until she started using emotional blackmail, for which I have no tolerance whatsoever. But this is all irrelevant. A self-published book with no critical mention, however earnest or compelling, does not merit a Wikipedia article. It is not a judgment on the work or the person, however much either the author or her detractors may try to turn it into such. However, I do wish her well with this work, which may provide her a positive avenue to help express and possibly control her self-destructive feelings. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2006 (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.