Talk:Dan Willis (author)

Notabillity disputed

The notability of this author is disputed, as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Note that directory listings are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes there are reliable sources given, including an interview. He's published three books with a major publisher (Wizards of the Coast). Looks pretty notable to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources cited are reliable - see WP:RS for details. Fansites are not reliable, nor is the fact that he has written books for Wizards of the Coast (his employer). Directories are not reliable either - see WP:BIO. More substantial sources are required. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm doubting the possibly weak notability, but where is it indicated that Willis is employed by Wizards of the Coast? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has ever claimed he's an employee of WotC. What I did write is that he's had three books published by them (Mirrorstone is an imprint of WotC). Anyone who has had three books published mass market by a major publisher is notable enough just for that, IMO (and this used to be part of the author/writer notability before it was severely generalized and merged into the main one).

As for the reliability of the various sites, the interview of Willis is a reliable source and the various reviews are reliable. With genre works like this, you have to be slightly more relaxed on what is considered a good source as even really good sellers don't always get reviewed in places like the New York Times—there are just too many books out there for that. I'm working on getting more reviews from print sources, but they are much harder to source seeing as you generally can't search them online without paying an insane amount to get access to exclusive sites. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• When I say he is employed by Wizards of the Coast, I mean he gets a royalty cheque from them, so anything published by them, their agents or an interview with Dan Willis cannot be classed as a reliable source, as they closely connected to Dan Willis himself and cannot be classed as independent from him. Having a book published is not necessarily notable - see WP:BK for details. What is needed are independent third party sources that are non-trivial.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're purposely twisting my words. Nowhere did I say that simply having published books was good enough to establish notability. I said that having three books published by a major publisher should and used to) count toward establishing notability. In addition, the interview is independent, done by a site not connected at all with Wizards of the Coast. It's definitely third party, and is considered a reliable source for Dragonlance information. So your claims of no reliable sources and lack of notability are completely false. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The website Dragonlance Nexus is a fansite, and can hardly be classed as independent from the subject matter. The interview with Dan Willis himslef is not independent of the author: it comes from the "horse's mouth" so to speak. Rather than just argue about this, lets ask for a third opinion about the evidence of notabability, of which in my view, there is none. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The site is accepted as a good source of reliable information regarding Dragonlance, and it is independent of Wizards of the Coast. An interview doesn't (and obviously can't be) independent of the author, but it is an interview conducted by a party independent of the subject of the article. You're picking nits here trying to discount everything used in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not picking nits, I am simply stating the obvious; an interview with the author himself is not an independent source. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interject myself here, but "common sense" is a matter of opinion and YOUR opinoiin about RPG releated sujects is harldy unbiased.Kairos (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An interview is not an autobiography, and it can not be called self promotion unless the author requested the interview (instead of being asked if he could be interviewed). Where's your source showing he asked to be interviewed? Interviews are used as sources all the time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On that point you are mistaken, otherwise every author that was ever interviewed would be notable, and that just does not stand up to a common sense check. Please restore the notability (people) template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this looks very well-sourced for a stub. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• This article does not site an reliable secondary sources to demontrate notability. Please restore the notability template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes 3-6 are all reliable secondary sources, and all of them have been added since the notability tag was originally added. In addition, the notability tag has not been present since April 13th. Since the article has been edited by 4 different authors since then, and none of them thought that the tag was still needed, that would seem to be a consensus. I am changing the date of the Notability tag due to this consensus, but I think that it should be removed altogether. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Footnotes 3-6 drawn from self-published sources, and cannot be classed as reliable at all. The fact that this article has been edited by 4 other contributors makes no difference. If you think you can add additional sources that provide evidence of notability, please do so, but don't remove the tag until then please. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• We have a book review, an Accelerated Reader list, and an interview... which of those were published by Dan Willis, Wizards of the Coast, or TSR? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• They are still self-published sources, so we don't know who iniated or paid for the publication on the web of these articles, I am sorry about that. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I will admit that the article and references aren't perfect... maybe it would make sense to replace the notability tag with the refimprove tag? I think that the article definitely makes him look notable enough, even if the references aren't perfect. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support that as being more accurate. Gavin.collins crusade to wipe out anything to do with Dragonlance and D&D on Wikipedia is well known. He's nominated swaths of articles in his crusade. His is not neutral on this topic, and so his actions here are very suspect given the almost 7 months that have passed since the discussion ended in April with nary a word from him. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Your hositility is misplaced. What is required are reliable secondary sources. I have restored the notability cleanup tag. Please provide evidence of notability.
  I am getting the feeling that one or more of you are somehow connected with the author. The new photograph is very professional, and I am becoming concerned that there may be some conflict of interest. Are either of you employed by the author, or anyone commercially connected with him? The photograph suggests to me that a publicist or some sort of publicity seeking iniative may be behind the recent additions to the article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the photo looks professional, and appears to be the only real edit of the person who uploaded it. I'm not sure where it came from, and it's not the one that was there originally. And no (as I already told you), I'm not employed by the author, nor am I employed by anyone commercially connected to him. I'm not even employed by anyone non-commercially connected to him. I've met him at a couple conventions and I took his picture at both of them. One of those pictures was the one originally used here, which has been replaced by the current professional-looking one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• My view is that notability of this article is established by its sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

• Based on what? A few self published webpages are not enough. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-I can guarentee you that there is no Conflict of Interest on my end... I haven't even read any of his books. However, I still don't understand why you are calling references 3-6 self-published. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to your question, the web pages which cited could just as easily be put on the web by you and me; there is no peer review, or evidence of editorial control, nor any evidence that they have inclusion criteria for their articles. For all we know, these sources could have been generated by the author, his publisher, agents or someone else with a commerial interest in him: it is just not clear where they come from. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Could that not be said for every single web reference on Wikipedia, meaning that hundreds of articles with well-established notability might only be using primary sources because we don't know who paid for the website? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why did you attempt to archive this page[1]? I have never seen than done before for a relatively short discussion. What is your interest in this author, exactly? Your attempt to hide and now suppress this discusion is making me suspicious of your motivation. Please explain yourself. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I did not archive the discussion; that was someone else's doing. Nor am I attempting to suppress this discussion; I simply want to get it resolved one way or another. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, get off your suspicious kick. Archiving a discussion is not hiding it, and there's nothing sinister or shady about archiving a discussion almost 7 months old. I've already explained this to you, yet you keep harping on the same point. Why don't you find something more useful to do instead of refusing to accept that Willis is notable enough for an article? And for the record, I was the one who archived (or tried to, anyway) the page, for the reasons I've already given you multiple times. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Input Requested section of the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons main page. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, please explain to me how those sources are not reliable. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I have mentioned before, self-published sources are generally not considered to be evidence of notability, usually because the author of the source is the publisher, and therefore is the sole abriter of inclusion criteria and editorial policy for self-published source that he/or she writes. Reliable secondary sources, on the other hand, are peer reviewed, and therefore the subject and content of the article has been assessed by someone other than the author of the sources, such that the source is deemed not only to be third party, but also reliable (at least in theory).
  This is particularly important for articles whose subject is governed by the guidelines on the Biographies of living persons such as this article - have a look at the section WP:SELFPUB - because biographical material must be written with strict adherence to our content policies to avoid the possibility of causing harm to living subjects. In answer to your question, self-published sources are considered reliable because they are not peer reviewed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I still need some clarification. One source at a time, would you please tell me how every one of those sources is self-published. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And technically, cnn.com, nytimes.com, and every other news site out there is "self published", so that, in and of itself, is not a reason for a site to be considered unreliable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added another reliable secondary source and removed the {{importance}} tag. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• The source which you have added[www.booksnbytes.com/authors/willis_dan.html] is a self-published source. All of the sources cited are self-published because (a) anyone can make a submission to these websites; (b) the site content can be changed at any time (i.e. the source content is not published, but is simply posted) and (c) there is no peer review and the standards of article inclusion and content policy are lower than Wikipedia. I have restored the notability cleanup template, since there are no reliable secondary sources cited in the article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Made into an {{importance}} tag. Please answer my question below before restoring the notability tag again. Also, this article is a stub. Have you ever seen a better-sourced stub? If so please direct me to it. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have done all I can to explain why the notability template is appropriate, but you hve removed it on the grounds that "this article is a stub", which is not a valid excuse. It is clear to me that your intention is simply to edit war, and I refuse to play this game. Please restore the notability template or add reliable secondary sources to article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I need you to explain, one reference at a time, why each and every one is self-published. I do not want to edit war, but I can't really help improve the article more if I can't understand the reason for your point of view. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-I've added three more refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

IT doesn't matter, a lack of references is just an excuse. It wouldn't matter if he were president of the world, Gavin's just slapping notability tags on RPG related things because he can. THe concensus is clearly that this article is notable, regardless of his nonsense aboutself-publicashed source not counting cause he said so. Kairos (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think this discussion may have got out of hand. My concerns about the notability of its subject matter and use of self-published sources are being ignored, and the discussion has become very partisan despite my good faith efforts to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Now this article's content is in breach of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it may now be wise to consider deleting this article, rather than allow more self-published content to be added. I fear that this article is being used as a coatrack to prove a point, rather than to provide useful encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• How does it not meet the BLP guidelines? Such offending content can simply be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I believe that notability has been fulfilled here, though it's somewhat weak. The book is part of at least one school's list, and it's been covered in multiple sources. I would think that the existence of a Wiki project to cover this book's universe would be enough to justify one of the writers for the series to have an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Notability

I don't think that the above discussion will reach a consensus without additional input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how it could reach consensus if you do not recognise that the sources cited in the article are self-published. Are you in denial or what? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that a consensus has already been reached... four people have participated in the discussion saying that the notability has been established. However, Wikipedia discussions are not votes so it would appear additional input is needed to resolve the issue, one way or another. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• A hundred people can say that the sources are good, but if the sources are self-published web pages which that confer no notability whatsoever, then you would have to question what their understanding of what reliable sources are. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why you consider those to be self-published web pages... they aren't self-published at all! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Give me an example. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is one of the cited sources. It is a book review by Conan Tigard. I quote from the site's main page: "Reading Review is a collection of books that I have selected to review, or been asked to review by authors or publishers.". Although this could mean that Wizards of the Coast, Dan Willis, or someone else may have asked that the book be reviewed, it does not mean that they decided what the content of the review would be, nor is the website owned and operated by WotC or a related company. If you can adequetly explain to me why you think this is a primary source, I will withdraw my RfC and the notability tag can be kept. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that almost all reviews are done by people who were provided the book free of charge from the publisher. That's the best way to get a review, and I don't know of any commercial publishers who don't do that. And reliable sources don't have to be notable in and of themselves, either. They just have to be independent of the subject, have some sort of editorial review for content, and be considered reliable by those considered knowledgeable on the topic (otherwise knows as "peers"). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I added another review from a professional journal for librarians. While Dragonlance Nexus is a great site, and one that can help aid clarification of some topics from the actual experts in the field, it can not by itself help with notability. Now if the DL Nexus posts a link or reposts with permisson the text of a review from a 3rd Party, then that can aid in notability. Web Warlock (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the article as it stands now, the fact that three of his books appear on a single school's reading list appears in the first paragraph of his biography, and one particular mixed review that one of his books received appears in the second paragraph. This suggests that the writers of this article really had to search and scrounge to find any information worth putting in the article. I can't imagine that a notable author, or a notable author's readers, would consider appearing on a single school's reading list to be one of the most prominent aspects of the author's life, nor a single review received by the author to be almost as prominent. Thus, the content of the article currently suggests that Dan Willis is not actually notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you that that reference is worth very little for the article, but what about the other refs? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I will go into further detail about the other refs when I get a chance, but as it turns out, the facts I mentioned are even less significant than I had expected. When I first read that the author's books appeared on a school reading list, I expected that list to be a one- or two-page list, with, say, 50 books listed. No, it turns out the list has 7,820 books on it. [2] Thus, being on that list is even less significant than I thought. And the review from Voice of Youth Advocates is described in the article as having a 2Q rating, "with a potential of 3Q on their review scale". I had thought that meant that the highest rating VOYA gave was 3Q. No, it turns out that they give ratings up to 5Q. [3] In all seriousness, if these facts are among the highlights and most significant aspects of the author's career, that would be sufficient to convince me that he is non-notable and that the article about him ought to be deleted. He doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, and I may nominate this article for deletion unless someone can provide a good reason not to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Now I'm going to look at the references individually. The Mirrorstone page is the author's bio at his publisher's web site. That's reasonably trustworthy but not independent in terms of establishing notability. Dragonlance Nexus is an interview with the author conducted by a fan web site, by a pseudonymous person named "Talinthas". Since this particular fan site appears to be reasonably well-established, I would consider it at least semi-reliable, but due to its specialized nature (focusing only on Dragonlance) I'm not sure it does much to establish the subject's notability. The Farmington Jr. High reading list was dealt with above, and I find it unimpressive, due to the fact that listing over 7,800 books makes it not particularly selective. It also contains no information about the subject except the titles of three of his books and a numeric "level" and "points" for each, which aren't explained on the page. (To be continued ...) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• (Outdenting.) Continuing with a look at the individual references, Conan Tigard's Reading Review appears to be basically a personal review site operated by one person as a hobby. I could be wrong, but as a self-published source it would generally not be recommended for use in Wikipedia as a reliable source. This page from VOYA.com just explains Voice of Youth Advocates’ rating scale and does not mention Dan Willis. I have not seen the review from VOYA itself, not available online, but VOYA is a professional journal for librarians. As far as I know, it's a reliable source. Wizards.com is another page on his publisher's web site, and is substantially the same as the Mirrorstone page mentioned above. Fantastic Fiction seems to be more a sales site than an informational site. I can't find any "about this site" description on the site to indicate otherwise. Books 'n' Bytes doesn't contain significant information and only mentions one of his books; I'm not even sure what the article is citing it in support of. LDS Fiction is a blog which mostly just prints plot summaries and apparently will list any new novel by a Mormon author. (See the description on the right rail, which says, "In support of LDS fiction, beginning with Jan 1, 2008, all novels qualifying for the Whitney Awards may have a post on this page." The Whitney Awards are open to any work of fiction over 50,000 words written by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) SciFan is a database and just lists three books by Willis. Fantastic Fiction was listed above as being a sales site. Although the citation identifies this page as being "Dan Willis: Talinthas sits down with young adult author Dan Willis!", that's an error. The Talinthas interview was actually on Dragonlance Nexus and was cited previously. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough; the source-by-source look at the references was all that I really needed to understand the non-notable viewpoint. I'd now say that the article can be deleted, although you should ask Nihonjoe or at least add a notice to his talk page before you do. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The VOYA reference (#5) was only meant to explain the rating scale. The other VOYA reference is specifically an article reference for the review mentioned. Fantastic Fiction is a bibliography site, and sometimes a reference for some minor biographical information (birth, etc.), so it should only be used for referencing the lists of books in the article. It is a reliable source for that information, but someone moved it from being a source for the entire book section to something dealing with an interview not even mentioned on the site. The Dragonlance Nexus is considered a reliable source for Dragonlance information, and an interviewer using a pseudonym is not a disqualifier for reliability. The Reading Review site is also generally considered reliable for book reviews. It has been around for quite a long time, too. I still disagree that an author with four books published by a major publisher is not notable. I'll see what else I can find. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While I do believe that the sources currently used in the article are sufficient to establish the accuracy of the statements therein, my concern is that the achievements described in the article are not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE (and the VOYA review is too negative to be considered an achievement). As an aside, the 7,820-book-long list on which three of Willis's books were listed seems to have come from a commercial organization rather than being exclusive to Farmington Junior High, but I will leave it to the supporters of this article to explain the significance of the list and find the original source. I will delay nominating the article for deletion for at least one more day in order to give the supporters a chance to improve the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally? I don't really care what happens to the article. I am against the indiscriminant tagging of articles. I am against the over reliance of some lazy editors to assume all they have to do is tag an article and that constitutes "work" on the article. And I am against several editor’s having to explain the minutia of their contributions because of one loud editor on a self-designed pogrom against articles of a particular stripe and misusing and abusing policy to get their point across. If this article is to be deleted let it be decided by the people that have expertise in the area, not by someone with a bare desire to see it so because it offends their sensibilities. Web Warlock (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not on a timeline or deadline. Imposing your own personal deadline ("at least one more day") is disingenuous and provides no real time for anyone to do anything. I suggest just backing off for a bit and allowing those who actually care about the article to look for and add the appropriate references. While I appreciate you actually taking the time to express your opinion regarding the sources (as opposed to the hamfisted tactics of Gavin Collins), your deadline is not acceptable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)