Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fovean chronicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fovean chronicles

Fovean chronicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK and WP:WEB. I have searched for independant reviews and found none. The article appears to have been created by the books' author, and reads like an ad. Yilloslime (t) 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 9 ghits ("-wikipedia" used) with nothing coming close to a reliable source. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nom. Article looks more like a promo. MrMurph101 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Self-published book by non-notable author. Google search revealed no reviews or non-wikipedia references to the book. Offered for sale on www.lulu.com [1], where it has received exactly one reader response.-Hal Raglan 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - Yahoo search revealed discussions of the book on Sennadar.com [2][3], rpg.net http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=313469, dmoz.org [4] and lulu.com[5]. The call to delete the article is a vindictive effort by Yilloslime over the way the editting of the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy [[6]]. Oddly, the Hal Raglan and Yilloslime editors appear with the exact same opinions and actions in both locations -[[User:FoveanAuthor] 12:42, 4 November 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Fovean Author has a rather obvious conflict of interest here, and anyways none the links he brings up are sufficient to establish his book's notability according to WP's standards. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Apparently the website with the 11,000 fans of the first book is no longer up for us to see; I wish it were. In the old days the distinction between a real publisher and a vanity press was easy to make; Internet self-publishing blurs this, and such self-published works cannot always be readily rejected from WP consideration. However, it certainly doesn't help that the author wrote this article, nor does it help that the author's editing practices on WP political articles are quite misguided. Wasted Time R 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the website is still up: [1]. If you don't like my assessment, you can read the books yourself from there and do your own review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 November 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.