Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warriors of Legend

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warriors of Legend

Warriors of Legend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Nomination withdrawn - article now cleaned up and referenced.

A single cult book from on-demand publishers BookSurge with Amazon ranking of 263,566. Not at all notable. Contested Prod. Pleclech 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the cleanup. I'm happy to withdraw this AfD but am not sure exactly how to! Pleclech 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you just add a "nomination withdrawn" note in bold and let an admin close the discussion. --Masamage 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - done. Pleclech 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Being published does not mean notibility. No assertion of notibility. The game of the same name seems alot more common.--Dacium 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The book which has been reviewed by Neo (magazine) and mentioned on ICv2, one of the most respected Pop Culture news sites there is. It is more notable than a lot of other self published press if you ask me. I've not put keep, because I am not sure if I can keep a neutral head about this, being an online acquaintance with the authors (much more so Jay Navok than Sushil K. Rudranath, though I do run across him online too from time to time) and therefore I could well be biased. However I have to ask doesn't it being reviewed by print magazine which one can come by easily (in the UK, perhaps a little harder in the US but quiet achievable) say something for it's notability? --GracieLizzie 10:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple independent reviews would make it notable. I don't know icv2 but it seems like it counts as one. I don't think the Neo review exists online and I havn't access to a print copy but I don't doubt it exists. My feeling is that only exceptional print-on-demand books should be kept - its far too easy to sell a few copies to yourself and buy some reviews (not saying thats what happened here!). Re Neigel's comment below, it's fine by me if he wants to do that. Pleclech 13:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but also cleanup. It is notable, but mostly POV. My solution: blank it and write it again more accordingly to an encyclopaedia entry. --Neigel von Teighen 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands, it wouldn't pass the proposed notability standards for published works Wikipedia:Notability (books). JCO312 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless references provided The article currently has no independent references and also contains biased language in the introduction. References need to be provided to demonstrate the book has been discussed in more than one publication for verification and to demonstrate notability. Dugwiki 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question & Comment when you say publication, do you mean only in print stuff? Would website mentions like ICv2 count? What about the tour connected to the book? While it was a very small one-off tour it got mentioned on Anime News Network and the Japanese site AnimeAnime. To be honest I do respect this AfD and see where it is coming from but I don't think WoL is not notable. --GracieLizzie 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Even if it passes the notability criteria, most of the text is quoted from the website of the book. We could be having a copyright problem. User:Dimadick

Even though I don't think the creators will mind I agree and I'm going to over haul the article with some suitable references and such. --GracieLizzie 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the article with references and removed the quote from the website. --GracieLizzie 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep only if brought up to standard. That seems to be the direction it's going. --Masamage 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep references in article establish notability. Eluchil404 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now significantly expanded and referenced. User:Dimadick

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.