Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Violin Diary


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Violin Diary

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable self-published book, not even available on Amazon.com. Page contains numerous external links to non-existent pages in an apparent effort to falsely fluff up its importance. bd2412 T 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about the external links being false - the original author used incorrect syntax, so they came up as errors when I tried to visit them. I have now fixed them, but I see nothing that convinces me that the work is notable. Cheers! bd2412  T 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we're a step in the right direction. Thanks for fixing it up. You have proven yourself noble. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Perfectly Notable. I received a copy of this book from the bookstore I work at. Amelia Nymph (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are tens of thousands of non-notable books in bookstores. What is it about this specific book that makes it encyclopedically notable? Has it been on any best-seller lists? Received a Pulitzer? Been in Oprah's book club list? bd2412  T 03:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of listings for books on this encyclopedia that werent anywhere near the bestsellers list, seriously though, there is no legit reason for flagging my article. Melia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melia Jansen (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It not anyone's fault that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's real nice, but totally subjective. Voters should disregard above comment. If you were told to come here by User: BD2412, I suggest getting a conscience. Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I just bought this book from a bookstore in Maine and if that doesn't legitimize the existence of it than I don't understand this website. 72.73.119.146 (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — 72.73.119.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Being able to buy the book at a bookstore does not justify inclusion. MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In defense of the 72.73 (and so forth), how about the fact that this book was discussed on the Early Show and that they interviewed the author? Geez, what is wrong with you people? Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wow, I've been following the back and forth postings between Melia and MuZemike and its disgraceful on both of your parts. This was inappropriately flagged and I believe it's worthy of an encyclopedia article.  Especially since they had a long commentary about it on on television, which I believe that Melia mentioned. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — Woodyallenfan2004 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I am simply citing a common deletion discussion pitfall. What else am I supposed to do when blatantly attacked? MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, I apologize. Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin that Woodyallenfan2004 has about a dozen edits on Wikipedia, and therefore may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. bd2412  T 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails notability criteria for books. Not only is it not listed at Amazon, I have trouble finding any such book on Google Books, or any reference on Google News. Google Web search yields a paltry 4 results, one of which is a Wikiquote deletion discussion, reading of which yielded the interesting tidbit that the book is self-published. References in the article itself either come from the book's promoters, or a blogspot posting. I conclude that a self-published book without any published reviews, is not suitable for Wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You either keep it or you delete it, I don't think that fact that you typed STRONG should matter anymore than my keep. Amelia Nymph (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt this will help: The Violin Diary is listed in Other Works. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is not a majority vote. Deletions (or "keeps") are not granted by means of a vote. This is a discussion pertaining to whether this article should be deleted or not. A closing administrator weighs in the arguments and makes the appropriate decision from there. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The issue isn't whether the book exists, it is whether it meets our standards for notability. For a book, these can be found at WP:BK. It needs to meet at least one of these criteria:


 * 1. it has been "the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." It clearly fails this one.


 * 2. Winner of a major literary award. It fails this one.


 * 3. "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Again, fails this one.


 * 4. "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Fails this one.


 * "5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." And fails this last one.


 * In addition, this book is self-published, and "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". I can see no justification for calling this book notable, it should be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per WP:BK and WP:N. Fails notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any self-published MUST have iron-clad sourcing if it's going to meet notability requirements. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails Notability.--SkyWalker (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, without passing judgement on this article or the book itself (which I'm sure is quite good), but it's self-published, the references provided are blogs (which are generally not considered to be reliable sources), and it does not seem to meet any of the WP:BK notability criterion. Every book article is held to these standards, and I don't see why this one should be an exception.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete per RayAYang, Dougweller and Lankiveil. And MuZemike is quite correct: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scant evidence of notability – or mention – beyond the author and publisher's own sites.  (There is one three-paragraph blog entry by an individual with no apparent literary or media credentials.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable as per above. I don't think anyone contests it exists. That's not relevant, thought.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How can Wikipedia encompass the sum of human knowledge if it doesn't include borderline notable books, as one would call this? Should this get removed, I will withdraw my work on this site and remove and images I've donated. This is insulting, not because you flagged the article I put so much work into, but because of the ignorance of the editors. Amelia Nymph (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are free improve the article by moving it in your userpage for ex: User:Melia Jansen/The Violin Diary after it passes wp:notability you can move it to mainspace. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems you guys have figured out exactly how to get your way, this teaming up against Melia is just wrong. 66.108.167.71 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — 66.108.167.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment No one is teaming up with the user. The article fails certain Wikipedia policies--SkyWalker (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Out of spite" is not a valid reason to keep. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This self-published book clearly fails WP:BK. Not even close. Ignoring or arguing against established notability criteria is not constructive: Wikipedia is just not the right venue for introducing new authors. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — User:Melia Jansen has been blocked for blatant incivility and harassment towards other users. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for 48 hrs. Anyways the person has left wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:BK: dubious publisher, not held in any libraries (no OCLC number on worldcat.org), etc. VG &#x260E; 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable book, clear fail, clear delet.Theseeker4 (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any criteria per WP:BK. It has an ISBN, a few reviews, and that's about it. The book is also self-published via Lulu, which is indicative of non-notability unless notability can be attributed from other sources. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The book is not listed in worldcat. The author is not listed in worldcat. The claimed author of the published review is not listed anywhere Sometimes a self-published book can get popular/notable despite such indications--but the  very few comment on the web sources given, and the total of 10 ghits for "violin diary" norcross  as a search string, show very clearly otherwise.  This is one case where I would object to moving the material into even userspace unless some indications of possible notability were given. If in a few months I'm wrong, of course, that's always possible.  But now I would suggest a rapid close to this to avoid serving indirectly as publicity.    DGG (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

— 74.64.120.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong delete Fails WP:BK and snowball close per DGG ukexpat (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete No suggestion of notability in long advertisement of an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's obvious to anyone outside of the small world of Wikipedia that there is a serious bias against Amelia Nymph and her article. The insulting teaming up against her and the article in question has caused yet, another editor to give up on this "encyclopedia."  If that's what you want to call it.  To want to create a database with the sum of all human knowledge, as Wales once said, isn't possible with these practices and I highly suggest new reform is needed.  Yes, I have few to no edits and I don't really care, this is just ridiculous how you guys have treated her hard work. 74.64.120.155 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — above IP has been blocked for block evasion. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no bias against the author or her article, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has standards such as Notability (books) which subjects for articles must meet, and this one doesn't. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BK  Alexnia (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the article creator has mentioned on User talk:Melia Jansen a desire to blank (delete) the article, due to the a youtube comment/conversation with the book's author. I do not have a link to that youtube conversation to see if it's valid or not. With the large number of delete votes, and the lack of contributions to the article, we may be able to interpret this as a loose CSD G7/SNOW delete. Anyone want to close early?-Andrew c [talk] 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment She sent me the link - www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQjbC2dPPb0 -- article creator and book author are pretty clueless about how Wikipedia works, I don't know if it is worth commenting on Youtube, probably not. Author accepts unpublished books can't have articles, but also claims if the book isn't endorsed by corporate America it won't be allowed, and that article creator just got blocked for arguing about it. dougweller (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2008 (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.