Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Tirlannon

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 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of Tirlannon

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Is this a notable epic book series (really one book)? Reads like an ad for a self-published book ("Lulu" press which prints books on demand). Google finds little or nothing outside myspace and a few chat forums[1]. Weregerbil 10:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you google "tirlannon" alone, you'll yield more results. I can see debating neutrality on this entry. It is a problem in which editing can rectify, but deletion is not warranted. The series exists. The author would prefer to not seek traditional publication at this time for a multitude of reasons, none of which include rejection by publishers. Sage Tuvitor 10:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Limiting articles and not including independently ("indie") published work doesn't make much sense. I fail to see how this is any different than allowing a message board entry on Wikipedia or anything else that only returns such results from Google. The novel has a fairly substantial fanbase along the West Coast of North America as well as the south-eastern edge of North America. With appearances at conventions such as Dragon*Con and the like from the author himself, I fail to see why this article should be deleted. If a synopsis of the story would help the article, that can easily be expanded upon. There's also been a D&D game story around the "series" for nearly a decade. I don't see how it isn't noteable - it may not be as widely known as Tolkien's work or even Kevin J. Anderson's, but it is notable. kimopupule 6:25am, 16 August 2006 (EST)
• Delete Vanity Non-traditional press, no Amazon hits. Essentially undistributed. Dlyons493 Talk 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity press? The Amazon entry had to be re-started from scratch due to a mix-up with the distribution packages. Vanity press? As the author of this work, I take serious offense to your choice of words. Sage Tuvitor 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Users first edits since March 2006 are only related to this.--Andeh 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I fail to see how the deletion of this article contributes to the overall goal of Wikipedia. The Legacy of Tirlannon not just one book, but rather an entire project based on a constructed universe written by the author, Patrick Reid. Additionally, this project has already seen contributions from several artists, performers and musicians. True, to date there is just one published book, but that is far from the end of the story. Fact is, the fictional realm Tirlannon is filled with as much history and detail as Narnia or Middle-Earth. The construction, writing, publication and collaboration that have taken place since the project began nearly a decade ago is most certainly of worth to others who may be interested in undertaking similar projects of their own. That goes for the distribution process as well (which seems to be the main objection to the article). Instead of being critical of an article because the book series is being independently published, why not stop and ask why such a decision is being made? The promotional process of Tirlannon, again, may be of interest to authors who do not want to sacrifice full rights to their work, purely to be published as soon as possible.

  Bottom line: There is much to learn about the process that brought Tirlannon to the public, the process in which Tirlannon is being marketed independently -- as well as the fictional realm itself. Deleting this article would be fundamentally against the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Enigma Publius 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Enigma Publius (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

This contributor's first edit. Welcome to Wikipedia! Weregerbil 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• No Delete I am an author of sorts myself, and I find the journey of this author and his creative process to be invaluable to someone who is walking in his footsteps. Just because there is no big corporate backing, doesn't make the story or novel any less a work of art worthy of discussion. In fact I would challenge most "published" authors to come up with half the details Patrick Read has developed in this project. With a west coast book tour, and an upcoming east coast tour, I believe this is definitely worthwhile reading. Oros— Possible single purpose account: Oros (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

This contributor's first edit. Welcome to Wikipedia! Weregerbil 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • None of these comments have actually to do with the article. We're absolutely not concerned about how smart the author is or how intricate the book or its milieu is; We're concerned on how widely known they are and whether or not we can tell stuff about them verifiably. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dlyons493; fails WP:BK due to lack of WP:V and independent coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is essentially no debate here. There has been no assertion of notability, and thus cannot be any debate. Once an assertion of notability is made, then Kinu has already pointed out the appropriate sources of policy on the matter. Please note that the TYPE of publisher is not at issue here, only notability (though non-traditional publishers present us with unique challenges in assessing notability, obviously). -Harmil 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Assertions of notability are only relevant to speedy deletion, not to normal deletion. Uncle G 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No independent coverage from reliable sources showing verifiability. Wickethewok 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have changed my mind. Delete the article. Perhaps its creation was premature at this point. Sage Tuvitor 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BK. This may be an ambitious project, but the only book published in it so far has an Amazon.com sales rank of "none". If the project ever attains notability, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with all due respect to the efforts. Sadly, the path of self-publishing is the path of loneliness; If there's no demonstrable fame, there should not be article either. Subject's self-evident worthiness is regrettably subjective, but fame, if it exists, can be demonstrated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:09, 17 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.