User talk:Steveparker123/Jesus on Thyface

This page could be amended if it breaches specific guidelines, but it is a page about a genuine book, so I don't see why it should be deleted. There are numerous pages devoted to books and authors on Wikipedia. Jesus on Thyface is published by Simon & Schuster, a respected international publisher, and it features in the catalogues of all major book outlets, in the UK at least.

The article gives no value judgments, other than describing it as 'humorous' – the category under which it is published. Beyond that, it outlines the plot of the book and the characters. Could whoever asked for it to be speedily deleted outline exactly what sentences make it different in character from other articles about specific books.

steveparker

Just so you know the standard you're going to have to meet, the retention standard ("notability" standard in WikiSpeak) is given at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes, like this:~~~~. Let me add a word of friendly advice: Though it may not look like it on first blush, there are strict policies on what subjects and content can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. In very general terms, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have

already been recognized
as important or significant
by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.

That's just a plain-English generalization of the actual rules to give you an idea of what's going on here, so don't rely on it but refer to the actual policies instead. (For a great analogy illustrating these concepts, see WP:SCRABBLE.) Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Really appreciate that. Solid advice. I did read through the guidelines, but it's easy to get things wrong in article creation. I also read through one or two other wiki articles on humour titles (eg, Simon's Cat), and attempted to emulate the style of those.

As the book is new, there is only one independent citation. My question is this: if there are several further citations (eg in national newspapers, magazines, BBC website, etc), such that there are as many or more independent links than other similar articles, is there anything else in the article that needs to change before it passes all the guidelines. Things that I can edit now.

I'd be happy to remove the article to my drafts page until I can provide enough external citations to satisfy notability criteria. But I'd like to think that I could make changes to the article now so that it satisfies every other criteria.

Steveparker

~~~~

I have elected to move this article to my draft page until more citations are added. Although I am involved in the subject matter of the article, I have striven to provide a purely factual and neutral article on what I believe is a legitimate subject. However, I would ask for any help from more experienced editors in improving the draft article so that anything that might be perceived as non-neutral, or represent a COI, be removed.

Steveparker

~~~~

Add topic