Wikipedia

Talk:Dan Willis (author)/Archive 1

< Talk:Dan Willis (author)
(Redirected from Talk:Dan Willis/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Notability disputed

Latest comment: 15 years ago56 comments6 people in discussion

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)
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)
  • 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)

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. -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)
  • I don't think you can discount the views expressed by 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. --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 {{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. -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. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-Okay. Here's my views on each and every source.

  1. Primary source; does not help establish notability.
  2. 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.
  3. Mention in a huge list. Does not help establish notability.
  4. Review on a website that appears to be managed entirely be one person. Does not help establish notability.
  5. If this were a link to the review, rather than a website describing the rating system, it would help establish notability.
  6. A published book. Helps establish notability.
  7. Primary source; does not help establish notability.
  8. Webpage describing one of his books. It is not an online store, so it helps establish notability.
  9. Probably doesn't help notability.
  10. Webpage describing one of his books. It is not an online store, so it helps establish notability.
  11. Webpage about the author, which links to other online stores but which is not itself an online store. Could help establish notability.
  12. 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. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • With regard to item 6[2], this is a review of the book "Dragon Well" and not about the author himself. Similarly, item 8[3] is a reference to the book "Dragon Knight", not the author, whilst items 10 [4] and 12[5] 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. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 5 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 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 [6][7][8][9]. So far 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. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago43 comments8 people in discussion

{{RFCbio}}

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 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)
  • 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. [10] 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. [11] 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)
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 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. --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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 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. --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. 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. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can search in Dragon/Dungeon magazines around the times of the book (and series) releases, that would be useful. Also check any of the other genre magazines if you have access to them. 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, and Asimov's. Magazines listed here may also have reviews of the books. Anyone have any other suggestions for places to look? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 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. -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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... good point. Next time I'm at a library I'll see what I can do. -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. -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. Web Warlock (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep your sarcasm in check Gavin. You are still viewed as someone who has not actually done any real work here. Web Warlock (talk) 15:27, 9 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"? BOZ (talk) 05:37, 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? BOZ (talk) 15:26, 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? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If we can limit to the discussions about the article, that would be more mature. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
 

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Firestorm Talk 06:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC) is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

What the hell is your problem, Gavin.collins? It's been THREE MONTHS since there was any discussion on this page. The last time it had been more than that. What is there left to discuss that needs all of these REALLY OLD discussions to remain on this page? Is it really so hard to click a link to an archive if you want to reminisce about the past? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, back in November 2006 you archived these dicussions on the talk page relating to the article whose subject matter is the the writer Dan Willis. At the time I was suprised that you archived the discussions on the talk page in view of the fact that the discussion that had been posted there were quite short in length, and were less than a year old. I was also suprised that the archive clock was set to 1 month in view of the fact that dissussion hardly every took place. The discussion that took place concerned the issue of notability in which both of us expressed shared strong views about the notability of the subject matter.
However, looking at this article's edit history, I realise that it was you who created this article to start with, as well as contributing the photograph of Dan Willis himself. Whilst I respect your right to create these articles and to contribute to them, I would ask you to refrain from attempting to archive the discussions again, and I would ask other editors reading this post not to do so either.
The reason I am doing so it that I feel that it is healthly to discuss the issue of notability and article content, and rather than trying to hide these discussions, I think it is better to allow other editors to join them, even if they are were started many years ago, in the hope that they will encourage others to make a positive contribution to the article. Some editors feel very possessive about articles that they have contributed to, particularly those that they have created. Some go so far as to defend their creations against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. You have been lucky to have met Dan Willis in person or to have an interest in his work, but I feel archiving discussions that you may not agree with may be a symptom of over protectiveness and I would be grateful if you refrain from archiving these discussions again, as you appear to have ownership issues with this article. I would also request that you be more civil and more understanding in your discussions with me and those editors with whom you do not agree.
I have requested mediation in respect of the archiving issue. I think archiving long or very old discussions is perfectly fine (I have done this myself), but where the issue is more contraversial (in this case Biographies of living persons), I do not think it appropriate until the issue of sourcing has been resolved. I would welcome the intervention of a mediator so that we can discuss these issues in a calm and reasonable fashion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay. For the record, I do not own this article. My having created the article has nothing to do with anything. I've created nearly 500 articles on WIkipedia. The only issues I have with you are 1) your refusal to allow the archiving of really old discussions which haven't had anything new added for many months (from 3-7 months, specifically); and 2) your refusal to accept any compromise. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, can you provide a list of the talk pages you have archived which relate to articles which you have created? Did any of them contain discussions about contraversial issues on which you disagreed with another editor? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've archived talk pages containing discussions of controversial material, quite a number of them, actually. No one had any problems with them as they were old discussions (usually more than 2 months old). This is the only time I have ever had any problem with discussions being archived. SInce there is a link provided to the archive, no one else seems to have any issues with it. You're the only one. Consider yourself unique. As for specific examples of pages, I have no idea. I've created nearly 500 articles, and edited well over 20,000 different articles. I don't have time to dig through them to find anything like this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you could refrain from archiving these discussions for the time being, I would be most grateful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
And just how long do you want? A year? Two? I've only ever tried archiving the old discussion twice, and never before several months had passed since the last entry in the discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Until this article becomes fully compliant with WP:BIO, by which I mean that reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability are added.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You're the only one here who doesn't think it has been met. Everyone else seems to be satisfied. Everyone is at consensus except for you, who insists on throwing a tantrum fit because the majority of people didn't agree with you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
If all you want is a couple years before I archive, sure, I can do that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not whether you or anyone else refrains from archiving the discussions, it is whether archiving is appropriate given the relevance of the discussions. However, I would be grateful if this page was not archived until notability has been established. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, i'm here from the Mediation Cabal. I understand there is an issue here regarding whether or not to archive old discussions. I see two parties involved, Nihonjoe and Gavin.collins. This seems like a relatively simple and straightforward case, so what I would like to see is each party state their position in one short, concise paragraph below. I would prefer if you didn't reply to each others' statements. When both of you have done so, I will make my first round of comments.Firestorm Talk 06:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Position of Nihonjoe

The first time I archived the old discussions, it had been over seven months since anyone had posted anything on the page. Gavin.collins immediately reverted the archiving and accused me of trying to hide the discussion. The second time, it had been three months and the same thing happened. I pointed out both times that archiving them was not hiding them, and that if no one had bothered to comment for that many months, then that particular discussion was over by any reasonable standards. I don't see any reason to keep discussions on a page indefinitely just because one person doesn't want to give up the non-existent discussion. It is not at all uncommon to archive discussions which are older than a few weeks or a month, let alone discussion three months or seven months old. Gavin.collins refuses to give a time frame he deems as reasonable for archiving a dead discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Position of Gavin.collins

Dan Willis is an article created by Nihonjoe and its subject matter is a living person whose notability is disputed, as there are no reliable secondary sources cited in the article. Nihonjoe and a few other editors insist that the article demonstrates notability, but other editors disagree on the grounds notability requires more objective evidence than just directory listing and internet forum postings.

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully, and the article about Dan Willis may include original research and unverifiable statements, as it does not cite reliable third-party sources. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above for discussion).

I have therefore asked Nihonjoe not to archive these discussions until these issues are addressed, but have not recieved agreement to do so; note that Nihonjoe has attempted to archive these discussions on two occasions[12][13], which seems odd to me because the discussions are still relevant to the article, and not overly long nor particularly old. Until this article does become fully compliant with WP:BLP, I feel this request is reasonable, and even if Nihonjoe does not agree with these points, I request him to agree to my request as a courtesy or a favour to a fellow editor. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mediator

I see 12 references for a stub, several of which meet WP:RS. I see no unsourced controversial statements that would run afoul of WP:BLP and I think WP:N has been firmly established. Therefore, arguments under those banners are moot. The relevant issue, therefore, is whether archiving this page was in line with WP:ARCHIVE. Note that that page is neither a policy or a guideline, but it does say when archiving should be used. WP:ARCHIVE suggests:

"It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly-visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion."

The issue is therefore whether or not the Talk page was getting large/bulky. Would both parties please state whether they feel the page was getting large enough that archiving was necessary? Once again, please refrain from replying to each other; I just want to see the positions of both parties. Firestorm Talk 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Firestorm, I would dispute your bald assertion that this article provides evidence of notability, and if you read the comments of Metropolitan in the RFC, he makes this clear that all of the 12 references come from Questionable sources. It is possible that I may be mistaken on this issue, but if you could point out which of the 12 sources is reliable, perhaps I should alter this view. For this reason, I think this is one of those circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly-visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. As regards, bulkiness, my understanding is that a page is bulky when it has exceeded 60KB, so prior to the Archiving/Meditation sections, I don't think there was any reason to archive the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the talk page was getting too bulky, even before the two most recent sections. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, you're right that none of the sources are the best. However, I think what is there is enough to get it past an AFD. The sources prove that the book exists, the author and his work are widely known within the context of people interested in this sort of thing. Also, if you feel that it would benefit newcomers to this page to be able to see a discussion on notability, all one would have to do is put a little notice at the top saying "For a prior discussion on the notability of this person, please see Talk:Dan Willis (author)/Archive1#Notability. Any new discussion should go at the bottom of this page." I think something like that would suffice.

Another issue is what constitutes "large". As far as I know, 60kb is just an arbitrary number and there is no consensus that that is the threshold. I don't think either of you did anything improper here; this seems to be a difference in interpretation of policy. Is archiving it and placing the aforementioned notice on the top of the page a reasonable compromise? Firestorm Talk 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I can even put a specific mention in the {{archivebox}} as it supports additional information outside of the auto-generated links. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Since 60KB is arbitary, just leaving the discussion on the talk page as it is should therefore be no problem. Whether archiving or not archiving is proper nor improper is no longer an issue, then I would like these discussion to remain here for the sake of transparency. I think this request is reasonable, as I am not asking Nihonjoe to perform any task, simply to do nothing at this point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we're agreeing that nobody did anything wrong and its just a matter of differing interpretation of conventions, can we agree that if the old discussions are archived after a period of a year or something like that, since this is a low traffic page, and a notice is put up that discussions on notability can be found in the archive, is that a reasonable compromise? If the Talk page was not excessively long before, due to the discussion about archiving it now is. Firestorm Talk 01:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I can accept that. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then Nihonjoe, would you like to do the honours? If there is no further disagreement, i'll close the case in the next few days. Firestorm Talk 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dan Willis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't link to anything useful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Willis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Willis_(author)/Archive_1&oldid=1173025177"