Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-Chosen Marriage


 * 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) 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-Chosen Marriage
Non-notable future book by a non-notable author who's other book is self-published. Does not meet WP:BK in any way. My vote would be Delete Dipics 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep The author is 14-years old, is that notable? I say we shouldn't delete it, I mean, how many 14-year-olds have written or published books? -- Tikallover 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Her age should not be the deciding factor here. Going by the guidelines at WP:BK I just dont' see how this passes.  The book is not even written yet, much less published. P.S. please sign your remarks using four tildes.  That will sign and date it for you.  Dipics 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A 14-year-old writing a book, is, to quote Dr. Johnson on a different subject, "like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." However, like the dog, it's not notable. Fan1967 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14-year-olds writing books are not that rare at all. 14-year-olds writing good books are a lot rarer. But how are we to know if this one is good when it's not even completed, let alone published? (Self-published books do not count towards notability, if I'm not mistaken). Delete, --Thorsten1 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is not even clear it will ever be published. JChap 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tevildo 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete self-published book which hasn't even been self-published yet. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 01:41Z 
 * Keep, I talked to the author - it is going to be published. --71.118.85.206 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's no proof or anything. Why not just wait until it's published and hopefully already famous?  An encyclopedia is a place for documenting known things, not for advertising. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 05:47Z 
 * Judging from the article, the author will attempt to get it published by Publish America. If not, I'm guessing she'll keep trying. Tikallover 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But I've seen games there are for future production, such as Sonic Rivals, so this is just like that. Besides, 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 19:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing to keep or delete? Because this article is not verifiable —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-04 23:43Z 
 * Comment The quote from Jimbo above is the opinion of one wikipedian even if he is the founder. Notability also has a link to some guidelines 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.  The book is not published yet.  Hence it is NOT verifiable.  And, 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 04:52, 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 15:15, 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 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Quote: "What if we merge all three of the articles into one article titled "Books written by Stephanie Apruzese""? Since Stephanie Apruzese has apparently been speedy-deleted, that wouldn't make much sense. But why don't we merge the nominations for deletion for all these books and characters into one? I think this would save us all some time and effort. Poor Dipics would not need to copy and paste the same statements into several separate votes, and Stephanie could spend more time on improving her writing so that she can hopefully have a legit article in a few years from now. Seriously, is there really no rule under which we can speedy this blatant vanity stuff? --Thorsten1 17:40, 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 20:13, 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)
 * Wait until book is published before making a final decision on this one. After the book is published, then keep the article as long as it contains "information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion."  68.50.203.109 08:15, 9 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.