|WIKIPEDIA VS. NORILANA BOOKS
||[May. 11th, 2007|03:14 am]
Please post the following (below divider line) on your blogs, websites, and any public online area you can think of:
WIKIPEDIA VS. NORILANA BOOKS
In a latest example of petty editorial tyranny over at Wikipedia, wiki editors have condemned the entry on new small publisher "Norilana Books" for deletion on the basis of lack of notability, conflict of interest, and the opinion that it "reads like an advert" -- when in fact the article is a bare-bone stub listing the authors and books released in order to satisfy a previous demand for "more content."
Norilana Books, owned and solely operated by writer Vera Nazarian, is the little engine that could -- since its inception in August 2006 it has over 70 books in print (public domain classics) and has just released its first original title. In addition it has contracted with the estate of the late Marion Zimmer Bradley to resurrect the classic Sword and Sorceress anthology series. But I suppose that's just not notable enough for Wikipedia....
If you don't agree, feel free to tell them so, here:
It reads considerably different right now. The version you've got listed above does read like an advert, but the current one I saw has more of an encyclopedic feel to it and references MZB sources. I think you could probably talk to Wikipedia again and get them to reconsider the deletion order.
Oh, no, sorry to be unclear -- I did not mean that what I listed above was the article itself, that's just a description of the situation to the public to know what's going on. The above is just a general thing I am asking folks to repost and propagate.
The actual article I refer to is what you see when you click the first URL.
And, as you yourself say, it reads encyclopedic and not at ALL like an ad, and is exactly as it did when some wiseguy editor decided to mark it for deletion...
And the editorial comments seem to weigh more in favor of keeping it, citing the editing work. :-)
Yup, just went and saw those, it looks like some kind folks edited in the references since last night.
Deleting the entry in its present state wouldn't make a lot of sense. :-)
Exactly, and hopefully that would be the final decision! :-)
Spamming on a deletion entry is unlikely to get you the result you desire. Being known to have spammed a deletion entry to get onto Wikipedia is pretty much the definition of advertising.
To be more helpful: What you really need is third-party notability. That is, is there clear evidence that unrelated press, etc. care about your existence? That is, is there any reason anyone would come to Wikipedia and look for an article about you?
Thank you for your comments, they are noted.
goddamnit, is there anything those whiny people won't start something over?
I am just boggled to watch that debate, to tell you the truth. *tired*
tell me about it. If you want to see something truly ridiculous, click on theangryblackwoman username and then go to the Discussion link. There you'll see the debate they had about whether my username was appropriate that began about an hour after I created the name.