Andthewheelspins

Speedy deletion nomination of W.C. Hewitt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on W.C. Hewitt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) The links to the publishing company have been removed. This entry was not made to be what it has been accused of (a promotional tool) but rather a class assignment and a short biography of a published author.

Problems

There are a number of problems. Unfortunately, I do not think all of them can be fixed.

1. Most important, there is no indication the author is notable. Our standards for this are at WP:AUTHOR, and basically require the publication of books that have been published by regular publishers (not self published) and have been reviewed in references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. WCH has no books listed in WorldCat, and all the books appear to have been published by Lazy Day Publishing, [1], which may be connected with " the Student Operated Press",[2]; both of them them appear to be the equivalent of self-publishing, though apparently not vanity publishers that solicit money from their authors. [3]. It also appears to be a brand new organization, "starting in December 2010" . Not surprising, WorldCat shows none of their books by any other author either, [4].
2. Assuming he were an established author with wel-known books, the article should not primarily be a plot summary of the book. If the books merit separate articles (though this is unlikely to the case for a new author), they just need to be listed and the articles written. Ifthey are not individually notable, a brief indication of the plot should be given, enough so the reader here will know what the book is about. Information required also is the publishing history: who published it, when, in how many copies , editions , & formats, and the critical reeption: what the published reviews said about the book.
3. The style of the plot description here seems to indicate that much of the material has been previously written for promotional copy. The encyclopedic description of a plot must be complete, not just a teaser--the sections here just describe the situation, and leave the reader in suspense about the ending. this is the way promotional copy, such as for book jackets, is normally written--the purpose is to get the reader to be interested in buying the book to find out the end of the story. That's not permitted here--our rule is NO TEASERS. (Other indications of a promotional style are the extensive background and use of adjectives.)

When the book are published, when libraries have it, when there are published reviews in reliable sources, then it is possible for there to be an article. But not yet.

I am considerably surprised you were given such an assignment without any indication of how to choose an author that would be suitable for an encyclopedia. There are many Canadian authors already in Wikipedia, but there are many who might have articles, but are not yet included. The way to do a quick check is to look on WorldCat, and then search for reviews. Any librarian can help you with that.

Please guide your teacher to our page Wikipedia:School and university projects for some information on how to do such an assignment. I will be glad to assist further--just contact me on my user page or email me from the link there, which will work if you have set up email in your user preferences.

The most practical think to do now, is to ask for removal of the article by placing at the top a line reading {{db-author}} , You should , of course, keep a copy of it on your own computer first. Otherwise it will be necessary for me to nominate the article for deletion, and I have no doubt that will quickly happen. I am am truly sorry to disappoint you--/w is in need of new editors. The first step, of course, is to pick a suitable topic--in addition to authors, there are everywhere local politicians such as earlier members of the legislature, who have not yet been written about, and notable local historical buildings. Local libraries will always know of suitable sources for such topics. And, just a reminder to read our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• DGG, did you notice - it is not going into libraries, it is only on-line. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Libraries these days buy and catalog electronic books also--there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of them in WorldCat. But they buy them only when there are reviews that indicate there is likely to be patron demand for them, or its an author whose previous books were popular there. Essentially that's the same criterion we use. The standard remains, third party sources.

I very much regret that you feel you have wasted your time. The responsibility is primarily that of the instructor, who should have given a more careful assignment, and guided you towards making articles likely to be acceptable--it's secondarily yours in either case, a look at our help pages would have made it clear authors whose work has not yet been published and reviewed do not have articles, basically on the grounds that nobody is likely to look in an encyclopedia for information about them. You might do well to let your teacher know that they are welcome to consult with any experienced person here in advance of assignments--and you are welcome too, in advance of writing an article. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to W.C. Hewitt has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)