Talk:Will Grayson, Will Grayson

Notice: This article does not verifiably establish WP:FICTION

In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for Fiction, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Untitled

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of third-party sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones, or self-published sources) suggests to some editors that multiple independent reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:Silver seren (talk · contribs), and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it … I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings … I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.

—71.166.147.78 (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what is insufficient about the sources to establish notability? Silverseren^C 05:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube link is not considered WP:RS because it is a slf-published source, and even though Publishers Weekly is OK as a source, only one of the two cites is non-trivial ... OTOH, how much notability can a novel have so soon after publication? This smacks of vanispamcruftisement to me ... also, the External links to Borders, Amazon.com, and other on-line retailers violate both WP:LINKSPAM and Links normally to be avoided. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the Youtube link. If you believe it should be taken off, then I shall do so. Many novel articles are created when they are published, that's rather normal. The Border's and Amazon links can be removed as well, if you would like. What about the The Day source? Silverseren^C 06:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nominating this for deletion is not a good use of our time.--Milowent (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to delete this article so hastily, it is very new and can still be improved. There are other sources that could potentially be added (after a quick search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Andrea (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reevaluation of article's notability

The last update to this discussion page was April 10. Can another more-seasoned editor give their opinion on whether this article sufficiently meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines? Dylanstaley (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

While I am the creator of this article, I think it's quite clear that, due to the references, this article meets the general notability guidelines. There really shouldn't be any question on its notability. Why are you asking, anyways? Silverseren^C 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was simply reading the talk page and noticed that there was, at one point, a debate on whether the article met the requirements. I was not stating that it did not, and just wanted a second opinion to see if there was a need for more reputable sources. Dylanstaley (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

At that point in time, April 10th, 2010, the article looked like this. It was a week before the book came out, so the sources currently in the article didn't exist. But it was decided that there was reason to believe that reviews in reliable sources would be made (and they were), so it was decided that we would wait and see. After the book came out, I put in the reviews as references, as they currently are, showing the notability of the book. Silverseren^C 04:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. It is quite evident that the major revisions undergone since April 10 have resulted in the page sufficiently meeting the general notability guidelines. As such, I believe that this section should be deleted or depreciated, whichever is more appropriate. I believe that this section should remain so as to prevent any further confusion from other editors. Dylanstaley (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles

I have removed the [[Category:Flagged articles]] from the message above … it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, but the current version looks to me like a Righteous Stub ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 14:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)