Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society On Da Run


 * 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. No evidence of meeting notability guidelines was produced during the discussion. I am happy to provide a copy for someone to work on in their user space if desired. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Society On Da Run

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Series of ebooks with no evidence of notability. The creator claims it was reviewed by "a popular author" who turns out to be no so popular after all. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * the author, Jess C Scott, has been added as the popular author that reviewed the book. If you want her bio on why she is popular, here it is . She runs the popular 10-year-old website dragonsinn, which is first on google searches for Dragon Poetry. Also, author JF Jenkins has also expressed interest in the series via Twitter, if it is required I will post the link to that tweet. The books currently has 29 facebook followers. If I have to, I will post the lnik for that page. Another thing, the ebooks don't have a google entry yet because they are on Smashwords. Keep
 * 29 Facebook followers? If you ask me, if you're going to assert the notability of something based on the number of Facebook followers, any number below 10,000 is a strong assertion that the topic does not meet our inclusion guidelines. Fortunately, we don't base notability on Facebook popularity, we base it on the number of reliable third-party references that exist on the topic. You've supplied one that does meet the third-party requirement although the reliability part is found wanting: if you feel you have to explain why Scott is popular, that the same as asserting that she's not. Indeed Wikipedia doesn't have an article on her yet, and the link you provided is something she posted herself. Fails on all counts. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It doesn't matter how many seemingly notable authors have reviewed the book, notability is not inherited. Unless the authors posted reviews to places other than Goodreads, you can't really count those. Goodreads is considered to be along the lines of IMDb as far as sources go, ie, a trivial source. I did a search for the book and was unable to find anything that would show that this book series passes WP:NBOOK. There aren't any reliable sources to show that this self-published series passes notability guidelines. It might be notable at some point in time, but right now it isn't. Most self-published works will never pass notability guidelines no matter how good they are because they won't have enough reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. It might not always seem fair, but those are the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Can all of you (or the two of you) at least do me a favor before you go about deleting it: can you read it through it and see if it's well written?Sir aaron sama girl (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The series or the article? In either case it doesn't matter how well written the article is or how good the book series is, you still have to provide reliable sources to prove that it passes notability guidelines. Trust me, I know several amazing authors who will probably never make it onto Wikipedia because they don't pass notabiilty guidelines at this time and probably never will. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Additional: You might want to look into seeing if you can userfy (WP:USERFY) this until you can provide reliable sources per WP:RS. I have no problem with you doing that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Indeed I don't think it matters whether the article is well-written. When the subject doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, even a masterpiece of writing won't survive the deletion process. But in some cases that merely means that right now is not the right time to start an article. See WP:OVERCOME. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the editing has nothing to do with an author's notability, I just want to know if it's easy to read and sounds "encyclopedic."

Sir aaron sama girl (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable series by non-notable author. SL93 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 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.