Talk:The Whip (novel)

Redirecting

After some consideration and turning a blind eye purposely to this for a while, I've decided to just redirect this to Karen Kondazian. The problem is that ultimately all we have are two trade reviews and some local coverage- not entirely enough to really assert that this book passes WP:NBOOK. None of the awards that the book won are really the type that Wikipedia considers to give notability. Most awards don't, so this isn't a slight against the author. I'd say that of the book awards out there, less than .0001% give notability in any format and even fewer than that give notability enough to keep on that basis alone. I'd sort of ignored the problem here, but I've noticed that there are a LOT of people editing the articles on both this book and Kondazian that seem to clearly work for her. This brings up a huge problem of COI, especially since there was a big issue of puffery on both this article and the main one. Right now I want to work on keeping one article and fleshing that out as well as possible, which would help keep the one article on Wikipedia. (Kondazian's main article.) I just don't see where this would really survive an AfD if put up for one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl79 - My name is Ryan and a friend of Karen Kondazian, whose novel page The Whip was deleted by you. Since you believe that the novel does not warrant its own page, can we put the information that was on that page, including the book cover on the Karen Kondazian wiki page? I understand a few awards and facts about the audio book were attempted to be added to the page but it was never for the intention of selling or marketing but stating the facts objectively, just like how the rest of The Whip Novel wiki page was. Is it all deleted? I know many many hours were put in to put synopsis and character information as objectively as possible and written in a way that wikipedia would approve. I understand why you might have believed the award addition not to be warranted, but to block the information of the book and not combine it with Karen's page does not feel like it should be the end result decision. If you don't want it to be its own page, can you please add or instruct me how to get that information back and add it to Karen's personal page? The book is blowing up, a script is out there and we want the information to be available. She is 61 and has contributed monies to wikipedia for your efforts and support, but cannot make the edits herself so she relies on friends. Everything else on the whip page was fact-driven and objective. So what can I do to get that information back on her page? Can you please reconsider restoring/consolidating "the whip novel" page or the information on Karen's page? I don't even intend to make changes such as the awards or audio book if it means this hassle/trouble on both of our parts. Thank you very much for your consideration. Roksenberg (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Ryan

• The problem with the sources was that we really only had two usable enough sources that wouldn't be questioned as far as showing notability goes, and they're both by CBS. There has been a growing consensus that trade reviews from places such as Library Journal are too brief to give notability, so I'd have expected some fight over that if this had ever come to AfD. The GalleyCat would probably be seen as trivial or primary, as it was more a notification of an event. In any case, we can include some brief information about the book on Kondazian's page, but not to the depth that it was on this entry. Now as far as any future notability goes, we can't keep an article based on something potentially gaining notability and further coverage. Scripts get written all the time, yet less than 1% actually make it to the big or little screen. Even then, not all of those adaptations are notable. I also looked to see if there has been any other coverage to show that this book would now pass notability guidelines, but I can't see where it has. You've got to understand that even if the book is selling well, that doesn't guarantee coverage in reliable sources, which is how we prove notability here. I can see where it has gotten some blog reviews, but none of them are usable to show notability. Now when it comes to Kondazian donating to Wikipedia, we don't count stuff like that into writing articles and showing notability. It's awesome that she's donating, but you've got to see it from this perspective: if we make an exception for someone because they donate money in any amount, then that would raise questions about how ethical Wikipedia is when it comes to showing favoritism to donors. Because of that we cannot keep an article based upon whether or not someone donates. I admire that she keeps from editing her own articles- that's a very smart choice on her behalf. However... what I can do is I can transfer a copy of this article into your userspace. The article is still there in the history of this article and nothing has been lost, but I see nothing wrong with allowing you to work on a copy at your leisure. I'll leave a message on your talkpage with the location of the user copy once I've created it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I looked for the cover and it looks like it was deleted. You can upload it again and I'd suggest that if possible, you look into getting it uploaded into Wikimedia Commons as fair use. You'd probably have to run it through ORTS to show that Kondazian has given her permission for the cover to be used on Wikipedia, but you should be able to have people help you through that process on the talk page for the group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)