Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gemini and Flowers Mysteries


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Gemini and Flowers Mysteries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A crime novel series with no indication it is notable. Does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT ~ GB fan 13:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that this page might be deleted. The series is popular with readers around the world, even if the sales are small. The author uses self-publication through create space and Kindle Direct Publishing as a way to getting his books into the public domain, not out of vanity but because he became frustrated with the almost impossible task of finding an agent and traditional publisher. As do many indie authors. Such people are writers, even if their books struggle to get accepted by mainstream publishers. The readers think they have merit, as they come back, year after year, to buy the next one in the series as and when it is available. Please leave the page up. Gurujonsweden (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden — Gurujonsweden (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see a single book review or other news article about these books or the author. Does not meet notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am a little confused by the feedback that these books lack merit or haven’t been ‘officially’ reviewed. Is it Wikipedia’s role to assess and judge things that exist or it is to provide information about things that exist? These books exist, are bought by hundreds of people and read by thousands through Kindle’s lending scheme. Purchasers, on the Amazon pages where they are sold, with mainly very positive feedback, have reviewed the books. The books are available for sale through a website, have been nominated for Lambda Literary Awards (In Real Life was a finalist in 2014 in the Gay Mystery Novel section) and are loved by their readers. Just because Wikipedia’s controllers haven’t heard of them is beside the point. As a result of someone uploading this page, now you have! Indie authors have enough trouble trying to get published without the world’s biggest encyclopaedia basically denying their existence through some preordained judgement process. Leave the page up, please. Gurujonsweden (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden
 * Comment: I'm all too aware that indie authors have a hard time receiving the necessary coverage to pass NBOOK - there are a good many books and authors that I would love to add to Wikipedia but cannot because they just don't have the coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles or reviews. Some of these books are very popular and have received good fan reception, however being popular is not something that gives notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Nor is the book's existence a sign of notability, as existing does not make something inherently notable. (WP:ITEXISTS) Winning a LLA would help show notability, but this only gives notability if the book wins and even then it would likely only give partial notability. The awards that give absolute notability (ie, that it would pass NBOOK on that award alone) are very few and far between and I'd say that less than 1% of any award given in any category (films, books, science, humanitarian awards, sports, etc) would give that level of notability. I'll look to see what I can find, but the problem is that most self-published books fail notability guidelines because there are always more self-published books than there are outlets that will write about them and would be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I also have to note that your username is identical to the Twitter handle of the author himself, so I would like to warn you that you do need to disclose any WP:COI that you may have with the article. (I'm concerned that earlier you mentioned "the author" in a way that would suggest that you are not the author.) I've posted a welcome note on your userpage about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl79, Thank you for your feedback and information. It was very helpful indeed and I am sorry if my comments might be seen as a conflict of interest, as I am, indeed, the author of the series. However, I did not put up the G&F page and have no idea who did. I was merely responding to the comments of other Wiki editors. If my non-disclosure weakens my arguments then I am sorry. Thank you for help though; very useful.Gurujonsweden (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden Thank you for your nice feedback, Tokyogirl79. May I simply add that, after seven books in the series, Wikipedia is hardly being pushed into creating exposure! Your suggestions for 'getting noticed' are fine but, having tried that over the years, it is far easier said than done. As I mentioned before, I don't know who finally put up the page and yes, I was delighted to see it and would be disappointed if it came down again but that is entirely up to all of you at Wikipedia. Of course you must maintain your standards. Gurujonsweden (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden
 * Delete. Other than the LLA nod, there just isn't anything out there for the series. We can't use the nomination towards notability, so that doesn't really leave us with anything other than a piece written on Thrilling Detective, which I'm not entirely sure would be considered a reliable source on here, as Wikipedia's standards can be very strict on what sources can be used. Even if it can be used, it isn't enough on its own to justify inclusion. I feel for the author, I really do, and I wish that we could leave the article up, but the coverage just isn't there and it's not really up to Wikipedia to create the exposure needed to include an article. My recommendation is to really lean on some of the sites out there that can be used as a RS on here, such as The Advocate and The Stranger. It's never as easy as telling someone to write about your work, but sometimes it can work out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete reliable, secondary sources simply not found.( I tried; I felt a kind of bond wiht a writer named Gregory ;-)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (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.