Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knight of New Orleans


 * 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   speedy delete. Already been speedy deleted by Fastily per G11 unambiguous promotion Davewild (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Knight of New Orleans

 * – ( View AfD View log )

not notable (just published, not published yet at all in US), claims to be published in 2011, references awards from 2008 (different book!), almost all references are primary sources or PR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Matt Fullerty and Parkgate Press may merit similar consideration as primarily promotional, and written by the same accounts with similarly dubious sources. (Note: all the accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets ). 99.12.242.170 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. But Amazon does show it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete' - No coverage in reliable sources. The awards are not significant.  And finally, the article is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This was a mistake-I created this page too fast and it is too promotional and as a Wikipedia newbie, it went too far in the unsupported direction, though the reviews link to other notable authors, and the plot was written to fit with common plot descriptions on other Wikipedia pages. But it's far too long and excessive I admit. As Bubba73 shows the book is on Amazon worldwide, and also Barnes & Noble, but this does not make it spam: in fact, the book is widely distributed by Ingrams, the largest US distributor, and is in fact now published by Amazon worldwide in the US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Japan and China. I confess I am no Wiki-expert, though I've used Wikipedia for years and when I won a book award my page was created for me, in fact, which was pleasing. Yes I tried to edit it, and it was controlled by Wikipedia, but suddenly because I used two different accounts last night, all kinds of warnings banners at the top of pages (I tried to edit the pages and then removed the banners, in that order, mistakenly), and not understanding the system, I created two more accounts (you can check this but I think it's pretty clear--what you call sockpuppeting, but only because I thought one account was being punished by an automatic system, little did I know) to try and remove banners. Big mistake! Having used Wikipedia to add references to other pages, I thought it would qualify after reading the page The Brothers K by David James Duncan (which has similar detail, though not excessive). In general I didn't realize the extent of behind the scenes restructuring of Wikipedia and that deleting the banners repeatedly would incur multiple warnings which I didn't see until they had piled up and I couldn't even edit the page. I understand I have a right to appeal and I'd seek support for a major simplification of the page. Overall, having read so many posts on this subject and the 'trial' of pages associated with me, whether created by me or not, I now see Wikipedia is a place that you join with a desire to widely edit responsibly or not at all. I'd like the chance for the former--I am an editor by trade and it's a good challenge, and this is not a disingenuous plea. I'd therefore appeal the deletion and request editing this page to the basics, a short page, less promotional, with more brief references to other relevant pages, which I can also work to improve, following the seizure of my old account. P.S. I've received a lot of negative feedback for my error yesterday, some of it personal and somewhat surprising given the supposed anonymity. Due to my IP itself being blocked with a shorter space of time than my actual edits, even though I have an original account years old, I haven't been able to put my case until now. I am willing to help and merely start again with a new account, hence this one. Thanks. WorldEdit123 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't the place to discuss reinstatement of editing privileges, and opening yet another account after having four blocked isn't the way to go--you might want to consult the administrator who blocked you. Notwithstanding your explanation here, all three articles are blatantly promotional, and are severely source-challenged to prove importance or notability. An Amazon listing doesn't suffice, it merely substantiates that a book was published. The edit history shows a continuous removal of banners by each of the accounts, as well as a last-ditch effort to insert the book into another article--this was not a 'whoops, I didn't mean it', but a persistent attempt to circumvent encyclopedic process and guidelines in the interest of self-promotion. Perhaps an admin will see it otherwise, but the edit history and article contents are rather clear. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The issue of the article being spam / advertising is secondary to the issue of whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines in general, or specific guidelines for books. The advertising tone, excessive plot details, and reviews are all things that can dealt with through editting.  The issue on the table with respect to article deletion is that the book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.  Also, it's unclear to me in your statement above; are you saying you are the author of the book?  In any case, if you have any sort of affiliation, you shoudl also be aware of conflict of interest guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Point taken in both comments. User talk:99.12.242.17 comments on opening another account--as above, I opened another account in order to communicate which I couldn't do as my IP was blocked. But rather than edit with a new random IP, I thought it better to open an account in good faith. The articles do show a deletion of banners--in a short space of time last night--since I was editing the pages without understanding the banner policy. This is really the case--the book page was new but the Matt Fullerty page years old without this issue, so the banners were a new issue for me. Yes I tried to include the book in another article, but your 'whoops, I didn't mean it' is unfair since I was already editing that other page (Paul Morphy, where the novel appeared in 'Further Reading,' a reference that was there for years also before last night): I checked the page to see if the link had been deleted, and it was. So I put it back (it had been there for a long time prior). Yes, I was persistent because as I explained, I thought the automated system was reinstating banners (they pop back so quickly). What more can I say to the idea that the page has an advertising tone and the plot is detailed? I agree, but then I see a lot of long plot descriptions on Wikipedia for movies and books, and I was following their general lead (there is often little more to say, but I added reviews since aren't these relevant? They appear in the book, on the back cover, and they describe the book. In some ways they are better than a plot description which effectively acts as a spoiler. It's kind of tricky to write a description that isn't entirely plot (spoiler) and isn't entirely promotional (a judgement of the book's wider cultural interests or relevance). Anyway, I vow to improve and start editing other pages, even though I am new, if an admin would support my case based on reworking the page and the fact it has genuine cultural relevance in the chess community especially. Thanks!


 * As for comment by Whpq, my affiliation to the book is from 2008 when the book award was given--seeing it published reminded me of it winning the award, so I edited the pages, and set up a book page. I believe it's a notable book as per guidelines for books for being award-winning and published worldwide in hardcover even if only published last month. The author has a UK agent (and the book is available from December in paperback, Kindle, nook and iPad). It also has a history as award-winning while still an unpublished novel from 2008-2010 under the name The Pride and the Sorrow (see Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award 2010 and William Wisdom--William Faulkner Creative Writing Competition 2008 (both of which have pages on Wikipedia). Based on these details, though admittedly it falls short of the Pulitzer (we can all agree on that), I'd ask for help to cut down and reference the page, what I was doing last night, but stupidly decided to use multiple account to try and get past what I thought were pesky 'bots. Can it be re-edited before a judgement is passed? I am reading on Wikipedia guidelines how blocking and deleting is not punitive, nor are unfamiliar users not given a chance to rectify an offense, given the short space of time in which the page was created and edited (within two hours). If someone is interested in chess or New Orleans, I'd love to see the page improved rather than cut--it does connect closely with chess, Paul Morphy and New Orleans, given it's a biographical historical novel. Thanks. 207.87.23.170 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The "back of the book" quotes are bad, because you control them. It is well known that many publishers make them up! Even if they are entirely legit quotes, you wouldn't have put them on the book if they were negative, therefore they are not objective. If those quotes are also found in a magazine or newspaper somewhere, then they can be included in a "critical reception" area, but you would have to include any negative comments as well to make it NPOV If the awards are considered "major" then that would suffice for notability, but I will defer to the consensus on if those awards are major or not.  being published, hardback or not, amazon or not, establishes nothing. I believe I have communicated that to you now several times. Many books/movies do have very detailed plot pages. Those are also usually very well known books/movies, and have a lot of influence on other works, references, critiques, etc to balance the additional detail. Its a percentage thing, not an amount thing. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Even assuming good faith, this is no longer about being a new editor, and whether or not the guidelines were properly understood. I find this exasperating for all the reasons previously explained, as well as for the continued propagation of accounts, all aimed at the same purpose: keeping articles about you and your book(s) on Wikipedia. Even if you hadn't been blocked, WP:COI is such an obvious issue here that it really would behoove you to let it go. The AFD processes afford the opportunity for objective editors to assess the articles on their merits; at the end of the process an administrator will decide whether to keep or delete. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 22:21, 21 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.