Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale Song (novel)


 * 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Whale Song (novel)
An advertisement that fails to conform to neutral point of view. Victoriagirl 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertising. I especially like the empty "other books named Whale Song" section at the end. They tried so hard to make this look like it's not advertising, but failed dismally. --DocSigma 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to scream "oh, come on", then cover you two in barbecue sauce and feed you to fire ants (in accordance with ancient Russian tradition), but a certain source tells us that the book is self-published. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete based on it being an advertisement for a vanity-published novel. --Wafulz 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above.--Svartalf 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom &larr; Σc o  Phreek &rarr; 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep author is really trying to get the article into a proper style, I think she should be given help, and time to do this. &larr; Σc o  Phreek &rarr; 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So in the end we might have a featured article on a nonnotable subject? --Svartalf 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, we have articles on lots of books, most of which I wouldn't be interested in reading, along with entire plotlines, episode guides, and made-up technology articles of various Sci-fi shows/novels/RPG's etc.... What's one more article about a novel? As for nonnotable... have you seen this, this, this, this .... the list does go on... Plus the book is now also being printed by Kunati Inc. Book Publishers of Canada so it's not just a Vanity publishing anymore. &larr; Σc o  Phreek &rarr; 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I could rid WP of all the nonnotable cruft, and an unknown author with one openly published book is not yet notable... I tried with this and failed, so I no longer initiate AfDs, but I still support those others start. --Svartalf 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep! Thank you, Ecophreek, for your support!! I have done everything to re-write this article and to conform to policy standards, with help. Those who frown on self-published or POD books are simply biased and have no reason to be heard here. I thought the purpose of Wiki was to write factual articles in a upfront factual way. And to comment on content and writing as opposed to judging whether someone or their work is 'notable' or not. These books are available in bookstores and online and one has been recognized as entirely notable by your standards, since it has been picked up to be re-published as a special edition by a traditional publisher and has also garnered the interest of a respected film producer. People who downplay the importance of self-published works obviously have no idea where a large percentage of the great literature in the world has come from. Mark Twain and a number of other respected authors have started this way. If you delete this article on the basis that the book was first self-published, then you will have to delete articles on other authors who self-published, such as Mark Twain (Huckleberry Finn), Irma Rombauer (The Joy of Cooking), John Grisham (A Time to Kill), James Redfield (The Celestine Prophecy) Beatrix Potter (Peter Rabbit Classic Series), Whitman (Leaves of Grass), Jack Canfield and Mark Hensen (Chicken Soup for the Soul), Margaret Atwood, Tom Clancy, Deepak Chopra, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Allan Poe, T.S. Elliot, George Bernard Shaw, Virginia Woolf and more. Regardless, I can't educate the biased uneducated on the subject of literature because honestly you really have no idea what you are talking about, but I will defend that the Whale Song (novel) article has been edited now and is no different from other author pages listed on Wikipedia. And that is all that should matter.(Cherylktardif 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Keep: My nomination was based on the belief that the entry was an "advertisement that fail[ed] to conform to neutral point of view". The entry has since been changed and the concerns are no longer valid.--Victoriagirl 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Victoriagirl, for recognizing that I've worked at making this a NPOV article. (Cherylktardif 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete Advertising. Self published, crystal ball, vanity.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The book has passed beyond self-published and is now being published by a Canadian publisher, also the book is to be turned into a movie thus fulfilling one of the criteria for what makes a book notable. &larr; Σc o  Phreek &rarr; 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Kunati gets some 50 Ghits, many associated with Tardif. Most of them talk about what Kunati will do i.e. crystal ball. I don't see an independent references for the movie.  So also Unverifiable  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  16:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: My vote to keep was accompanied by a request for a citation concerning the statement that Whale Song, when published in 2003, "captured the interest of a leading Canadian film producer". The first citation provided, from the publisher's website, speaks of a "much-talked-about screenplay"; no producer is mentioned. The second citation, also from the publisher's site, is a word for word repetition of the claim ("captured the interest of a leading Canadian film producer") and provides no further information. In all fairness, the citations provided give no indication that "the book is to be turned into a movie". Furthermore, ghits for this "much-talked-about screenplay" (again, to be fair, the words of the publisher) appears to be limited to blogs and sites associated with the author. I suggest that this issue might be remedied by including citations to at least one trade journal (Quill & Quire or, perhaps, a film publication). The name of the "leading Canadian film producer" should also be included.--Victoriagirl 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of you understand how the movie industry works. When you submit a screenplay (and mine is in their hands now), most screenwriters will sign a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. This protects the producer from having their projects stolen until they have committed to it financially and are ready to release that info. So I am simply not authorized to release the name of said producer. My publisher on the other hand is fully aware of the arrangements between me and this Canadian producer as Kunati initially wanted movie rights and I could not give it to them. It has been documented all over the internet that a screenplay was in the works and that a producer requested it. I won't jeopardize my chances at a movie over a request for a citation that you deem viable. There already is a web link that backs up my claim. If this producer releases me from the agreement, their company name will go up immediately.(Cherylktardif 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Assertion aside, I do happen know something of what I speak when it comes to the film industry. A great many novels come under consideration by producers - sadly, few are accepted and the public is never the wiser. Were it not for the claims of a young, as yet untested publishing company, and those of the article's subject, we would know nothing of this possible project. Ms Tardif is justifiably proud that her book has attracted attention from the world of film, but her claim is unverifiable. I expect that in the happy event the novel is optioned, there will be a major press release. These things are always more than trumpeted on company websites and in Quill & Quire, the Canadian journal of the publishing trade. Until the time the claims can be verified, I respectfully recommend that references to the unidentified "leading Canadian film producer" and his request that Ms Tardif produce a screenplay be deleted.--Victoriagirl 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am now able to mention the film company and producer's name. More news on this topic to be added soon.(Cherylktardif 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Keep A published book seems fairly notable, esp. with a movie deal attached. Article could still use some clean-up, but that's no reason to delete. Icewolf34 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The claim of a movie deal is completely Unverified. None of the article links substantiate it.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never made claims that there is a "movie deal". That is what another member said. I stated that the screenplay was being considered after the producer requested it. There is no "movie deal", let me stress that. I will be re-working this article again.(Cherylktardif 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Final edit on this page. Removed movie references. Added a citation regarding my brother's murder, in case someone wanted to contest my comment/claim was unverified.(Cherylktardif 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete Violates no original research rule. --Atrian 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment As far as I can see, Kunati Book Publishers have not published any books - they are a startup who hope to publish some next January.  So until they publish her book this is a self-published book.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  23:30, 11 August 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.