Jump to content

Talk:Dan Willis (author): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m nest banner
archive older discussions (older than 1 month)
Line 9: Line 9:
{{D&D|class=stub|importance=low|Dragonlance=yes|refs=yes|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=no|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|nested=yes}}
{{D&D|class=stub|importance=low|Dragonlance=yes|refs=yes|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=no|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|nested=yes}}
}}
}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}


__TOC__
==Notability disputed==
The notability of this author is disputed, as there are no [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]] to demonstrate [[WP:BIO|notability]]. Note that directory listings are not evidence of notability. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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? -- [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 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 [[WP:RS|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.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::*The website [http://www.dlnexus.com/features/interviews/12609.aspx 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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 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.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Metatron&#39;s Cube|Kairos]] ([[User talk:Metatron&#39;s Cube|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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I think that this looks very well-sourced for a stub. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::*This article does not site an [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]] to demontrate notability. Please restore the [[Template:Notability|notability]] template. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::*Footnotes 3-6 drawn from [[Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources|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 [[WP:BIO|notability]], please do so, but don't remove the tag until then please. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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? -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::*They are still [[Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources|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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::*Your hositility is misplaced. What is required are [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]]. I have restored the notability cleanup tag. Please provide evidence of notability.<br />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 [[WP:COI|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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 04:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::*My view is that notability of this article is established by its sources. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 09:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC).
:::::::::::*Based on what? A few [[WP:SPS|self published]] webpages are not enough. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitrary break 1===
-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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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? -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
::*Why did you attempt to archive this page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Willis&diff=250560097&oldid=250559848]? 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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::<small>'''Note:''' This discussion has been included in the Input Requested section of the [[WP:D&D|WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons main page]]. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 13:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</small>
::::Gavin, please explain to me how those sources are not reliable. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
::::*As I have mentioned before, [[WP:SPS|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. [[WP:RS|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). <br />This is particularly important for articles whose subject is governed by the guidelines on the [[WP:BLP|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.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::I've added another reliable secondary source and removed the <code><nowiki>{{importance}}</nowiki></code> tag. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*Made into an {{tl|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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 17:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-I've added three ''more'' refs. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Metatron&#39;s Cube|Kairos]] ([[User talk:Metatron&#39;s Cube|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 [[WP:COATRACK|coatrack]] to prove a point, rather than to provide useful encyclopedic content. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 10:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:*''How'' does it not meet the BLP guidelines? Such offending content can simply be removed. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 12:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
::*I have already explained as best I can. I shall be greatful if the notability template is restore, as there are no reliable secondary sources cited in this article. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 16:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
:::*This discussion still exists? It seems that 6 people agreeing with the article's notability and 2 opposing it would establish a consensus. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
::::*I don't think you can discount the views expressed by [[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] in the RFC just because he is outnumbered. I think we have discussed the notability of this author, but you are not accepting other editors views. Really it is down to you to either repute his arguments, or put forward your views about why you think these sources cited in this article demonstrate notability. In the meantime, I shall restore the cleanup template. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::*I do not discount the views of Metropolitan90. Because of what he has said, I will not remove the {{tl|notability}} tag from this article unless more sources are found. However, I hold my position that some of the sources are reliable and establish notability; I simply will not continue to fight over it unless more sources are found. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::*I am not asking for a fight, just clarification of which sources you believe are reliable and why. As of now, you are the only editor asserting that these sources are reliable and I think we need you to make your reasons known, in case there is some aspect of this article that has been overlooked. Please make your views know as regards which of the 12 sources cited you think are reliable and why. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Okay. Here's my views on each and every source.
#Primary source; does not help establish notability.
#An interview conducted at a reliable secondary source (in relation to D&D). Unfortunately, as an interview, this is a primary source and so does not help establish notability.
#Mention in a huge list. Does not help establish notability.
#Review on a website that appears to be managed entirely be one person. Does not help establish notability.
#If this were a link to the review, rather than a website describing the rating system, it would help establish notability.
#A published book. Helps establish notability.
#Primary source; does not help establish notability.
#Webpage describing one of his books. It is not an online store, so it helps establish notability.
#Probably doesn't help notability.
#Webpage describing one of his books. It is not an online store, so it helps establish notability.
#Webpage about the author, which links to other online stores but which is not itself an online store. Could help establish notability.
#Webpage about the author at a reliable secondary source. Helps establish notability.

So I'd say that references 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12, when taken together, establish his notability. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 13:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:*With regard to item 6[http://www.voya.com/WhatsInVoya/reviews.shtml#reviews], this is a review of the book "Dragon Well" and not about the author himself. Similarly, item 8[http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/dan-willis/dragon-knight.htm] is a reference to the book "Dragon Knight", not the author, whilst items 10 [http://ldsfiction2.blogspot.com/2008/11/dragonlance-survivors-by-dan-willis.html] and 12[http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/dan-willis/] are about the book "Dragonlance: The Survivors" and the not the author. Taken seperately or as a group, these reference to not provide any evidence of notability about the author. I am restoring the cleanup template accordingly. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 09:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::*If an author's books are notable, why wouldn't the person who wrote them be? -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
:::*Because [[WP:NOTINHERITED|notability is not inherited]]. The author's notability must be established by citing real-world non-trivial content about the author himself (not his books) from [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]]. I have restore the template again in the hope that they will be added at some point in the future. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 22:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::::You're quoting an essay there, and specifically using an argument the essay tells you is a fallacy. Since you appear to not even read the articles you tag, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that you appear to not read the pages you link to in order to support your arguments. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::*Whether you accept my views or not, no evidence has been provided in this article to indicate that this author can inherit notability from his books. The reason is the content of the sources themselves are just book listings; there is no commentary, context, analysis or criticism in any of these sources [http://www.booksnbytes.com/authors/willis_dan.html][http://ldsfiction2.blogspot.com/2008/11/dragonlance-survivors-by-dan-willis.html][http://www.scifan.com/writers/ww/WillisDan.asp][http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/dan-willis/]. So far [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe]], you have focused on the reliablity of my views, but these are not important. What is important is the sources and content of this article are open to challenge by any editor if does not provide any evidence of notability. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 09:31, 9 December 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. &mdash; [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 12:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

== RfC: Notability ==

{{tl|RFCbio| section=RfC: Notability !! reason=There is an ongoing discussion regarding the notability of this author that needs additional input to resolve !! time=20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)}}

I don't think that the above discussion will reach a consensus without additional input. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Drilnoth|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 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 [[WP:SPS|self-published]]. Are you in denial or what? --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk: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! -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 15:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Give me an example. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::*[http://www.readingreview.com/dragonknight.html 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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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"). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 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. [[User:Webwarlock|Web Warlock]] ([[User talk:Webwarlock|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. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk: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? -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. [http://webservices.davis.k12.ut.us/AR/index.jsp?loc=409] 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. [http://www.voya.com/WhatsInVoya/reviews.shtml#reviews] 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. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
:***Now I'm going to look at the references individually. [http://ww2.wizards.com/books/mirrorstone/AuthorBios.aspx?doc=DanWillis 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. [http://www.dlnexus.com/features/interviews/12609.aspx 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. [http://webservices.davis.k12.ut.us/AR/index.jsp?loc=409 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 ...) --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
*(Outdenting.) Continuing with a look at the individual references, [http://www.readingreview.com/dragonknight.html 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. [http://www.voya.com/WhatsInVoya/reviews.shtml#reviews 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. [http://ww2.wizards.com/Books/Wizards/Bios/default.aspx?doc=DanWillis Wizards.com] is another page on his publisher's web site, and is substantially the same as the Mirrorstone page mentioned above. [http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/dan-willis/dragon-knight.htm 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. [http://www.booksnbytes.com/authors/willis_dan.html 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. [http://ldsfiction2.blogspot.com/2008/11/dragonlance-survivors-by-dan-willis.html 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 [http://www.whitneyawards.com/rules.html 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.) [http://www.scifan.com/writers/ww/WillisDan.asp SciFan] is a database and just lists three books by Willis. [http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/dan-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. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk: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. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Webwarlock|Web Warlock]] ([[User talk:Webwarlock|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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I guess my question is what should I expect to be added to the article if I wait a week, a month, six months, or whatever. For example, have any of Dan Willis's books ever hit any best seller list, or been nominated for any award? Besides the ''VOYA'' review, have they been reviewed by any professionally published review source? Has he ever been interviewed by any professionally published publication? Are there other reliable sources which are believed to exist but which have not yet been accessed so they can be added to the article? Please note that I am not posing these questions out of hostility to Willis, whom I had never heard of before [[User:Vassyana]] posted a request for comments at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=252414899&oldid=252405962 Wikipedia:RSN#Dan Willis]. Rather, I think the current content of the article is more embarrassing to Willis than having no article about him would be, because if the most important aspects of an author's career include being listed on a single junior high school's reading list and getting a mediocre review from a library journal, that tends to portray him in a negative light. Unfortunately, if the ''VOYA'' review were omitted from the article, that would also be getting rid of the most reliable source currently being used. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I am actively searching for additional references, but the sources I'm researching (several genre magazines) are not available online so it will take some time. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough. If there are sources in genre magazines, they may well be more difficult to find, so I'm not going to nominate this article for deletion anytime soon. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 06:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'm coming from pretty much the same standpoint as Web Warlock on this one. Hey, if NihonJoe does his best to find sources and can't come up with anything decent, could merge/redirect be a possible alternative to AFD? Since he is a fairly recent author, some future time may bring him enough attention to solidly establish notability, and it would be a shame for someone to have to rewrite an article from scratch rather than easily resurrect and improve an article that was redirected at this time. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 07:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Nihonjoe, if there's any way that I can help find sources, let me know. I really don't want to see the article deleted, but I personally am out of ideas. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::If you can search in ''[[Dragon (magazine)|Dragon]]''/''[[Dungeon (magazine)|Dungeon]]'' magazines around the times of the book (and series) releases, that would be useful. Also check [[:Category:Role-playing game magazines|any of the other genre magazines]] if you have access to them. ''[[Diamond Comic Distributors|Previews]]'' often has reviews of new books as well. ''[[Realms of Fantasy]]'' usually has quite a few reviews, as do ''[[The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction]]'', ''[[Analog Science Fiction and Fact|Analog]]'', and ''[[Asimov's Science Fiction|Asimov's]]''. Magazines listed [[:Category:American science fiction magazines|here]] may also have reviews of the books. Anyone have any other suggestions for places to look? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 02:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, I have very few game- and sci fi/fantasy-type magazines, and most of them are 2006-2007 issues of ''Dungeon''. That was definitely a good idea, but someone else would need to look through those sources. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Many libraries (especially university libraries) carry them and keep archives of them. Some may even have indexes of them. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 03:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm... good point. Next time I'm at a library I'll see what I can do. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::No luck; my library doesn't carry any back issues of magazines like that that I could find. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 15:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:I will do the due dilligence and look for some more sources as well. Even if the article does not survive in it's current form I feel it is the responisble thing to do to make sure I have at least looked everywhere I can. [[User:Webwarlock|Web Warlock]] ([[User talk:Webwarlock|talk]]) 12:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
* Notability has been adequately established. We should just remove the tag and move on. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 10:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:*Could you clarify if your opinion is based upon any particular evidence? --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::*I have replaced {{tl|notability}} with {{tl|bio-notability}}. They mean basically the same thing, but I think that the former sounds more like its saying that Dan Willis isn't notable, rather then saying that having a biography about him on Wikipedia isn't necessary. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 13:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:::*I am grateful that a member of the D&D Wikiproject has placed a cleanup template on an article associated with the project. This is a major breakthrough. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 09:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::*I think I've placed quite a few tags ''where they were warranted''. In this case I was just replacing a tag already there with a more appropriate one. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 13:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: Keep your sarcasm in check Gavin. You are still viewed as someone who has not actually done any real work here. [[User:Webwarlock|Web Warlock]] ([[User talk:Webwarlock|talk]]) 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::*No sarcasm intended. This is an important milestone. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::*I'm having trouble seeing how your comments are ''not'' sarcastic. Unless you simply just have that low of an opinion of us that you consider one of us placing a cleanup template on an article to be a "major breakthrough" and an "important milestone"? [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::*Assume good faith, as I have done. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 11:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*OK, I'll assume that you meant what you said; that a member of the D&D Wikiproject, Drilnoth, placing a cleanup template on an article associated with the project is a "major breakthrough" and an "important milestone". That being the case, I have seen many such "major breakthroughs" and "important milestones" from Drilnoth. But is this a talk page for discussing Drilnoth or this article? [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 15:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::*If anyone wishes to discuss my own tagging of articles, I will be more than happy to on my talk page. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::*Personally I think the more applicable guideline here is [[WP:NPA]], to wit: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Also from [[WP:AGF]]: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." This is an article talk page, why not focus all comments on the notability of Dan Willis? Not the editing habits of D&D Wikiproject members? [[User:ColorOfSuffering|ColorOfSuffering]] ([[User talk:ColorOfSuffering|talk]]) 20:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:42, 26 March 2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Willis_(author)&oldid=279774244"