Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned as books are not within the CSD. Still, Delete as advertorial, and a probable vanity-press work. Xoloz 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found; whether or not the publisher is a vanity press (and it seems far from obvious to me that it is), it's a tiny publisher, and the book seems to have received little or no attention, online at least. . The only sources offered are the author's and publisher's websites. The tone of the "biography" section is spammy, the rest is just a plot summary. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Copy of DRV comment: Advertorial article on the first book of an ambitious but non-notable young author (Matthew R. Milson, also deleted) published by a vanity press (see Articles for deletion/Avari Press) on October 15 of this year. Milson has been shopping Young Arcan around since January 2006 and while I wish him the best of luck, Wikipedia is not a proper venue for advertising new fictional works. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedantic comment The AfD doesn't say anything about Avari Press being a vanity press, and their website doesn't contain any hint that they charge for publication. I'm not sure where the confident claims in that DRV that it's a vanity press came from. However it only has a tiny catalogue, so being published by it is nowhere near enough to establish notability anyway. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true that there's no conclusive proof that Avari is a vanity press, and I am not inclined to entertain their submission process to substantiate the claim. To clarify, it was only after reading over the three relevant articles that I came to agree with the vanity press label initially suggested by the editor who added the speedy deletion tags. Either way, it is far too early to know whether Milson's book will sink or swim. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot see how this meets Notability (books) Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I can't find any indication that Avari is a vanity press (I saw a couple of mentions in a Google hunt, but nothing firm), the novel itself hasn't really received the coverage that would see it through for notability. Maybe later, if it picks up, but right now it doesn't meet our guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - According to the Wikipedia etiquette concerning articles for deletion: “The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.”  Fan of fantasy  —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The page you're quoting is referring to the accusation of so-called "vanity articles," pointing out that we will generally keep an autobiographical article if the subject is in fact notable. That is not the context in which the word "vanity" is being used in this debate; here it refers to vanity presses. Chick Bowen 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, only coverage I could find was this brief news piece from Lancaster Online, a news site for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, home of Avari Press. Fails the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" test. --Stormie 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why was this overturned?  Oh well.  Delete it again for good this time, and hooray for bureaucracy.   Bur nt sau ce  18:19, 29 October 2007 (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.